Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islands Phonecards Database

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islands Phonecards Database

Islands Phonecards Database (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod following an earlier speedy deletion & recreation. The creator is arguing — probably rightly — that this is the leading phonecard collecting website. However, there are no sources of any kind to indicate this. (While I wouldn't necessarily expect a feature in the Washington Post, I'd at least expect mentions in Phonecard News or similar.) Besides, as far as I'm aware phonecard collection is a relatively minor hobby (flames from irate phonecard collectors to the usual place, please), and I'm not sure it's a significant enough pastime that websites covering it warrant inclusion. I'm happy to be proven wrong... — iridescent 00:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Maybe the author should redirect his energy on writing an article about the hobby itself, since there is none as of today. If it is notable enough, that is. --Blanchardb 00:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. Doctorfluffy 02:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, as above. Is a website, not a phenomenon. digitalemotion 02:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unsourced, unproven allegations concerning a site that fails WP:WEB and created by an SPA whose contribution history to date involves pushing this site.  RGTraynor  08:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Phone card collection is a hobby that in its peak reached over 2 million collectors worldwide. It has declined but has not disappeared. Regarding your comments: - I have contributed before but mostly changes and I've submitted this topic since it's close to me. - I have asked for something simple: tell me of one phone card collector who will tell you this site is insignificant. I feel you're passing judgement over something you have no knowledge about. - Regarding more in-depth entries of the hobby, these are the next articles planned. See, for example, an article of the sort ON WikiPedia (Dutch): http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telefoonkaarten_verzamelen That's enough for me. If you feel so strongly about it, I won't add this article again though I expect others would. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiawe (talk • contribs) 08:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to Alexa's rating for most popular in 'Phonecards' http://www.alexa.com/browse?&CategoryID=8565 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiawe (talk • contribs) 10:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Also another collectible phonecards site ranking that states the site on the top: http://www.acttonline.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=DanTopSite&file=index —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiawe (talk • contribs) 10:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS etc. Hint to Wikiawe: when trying to convince us to keep an article on a website, it's probably best not to point out the Alexa rank if the rank in question is worse than 600,000(!!!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Phone card collection is a niche hobby and I never claimed differently. The site is rated first in its category and provides a unique service of collection matching. I've had enough of this patronizing attitude about a hobby none of the commentators obviously know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiawe (talk • contribs) 22:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: The criteria used in judging whether an article should be kept are Wikipedia policies and guidelines; in this specific case, WP:WEB, WP:RS and WP:SPA. If, after reviewing those criteria, you can tell us which ones this website fulfills, we can readily reconsider. Whether editors are knowledgeable about this hobby or whether or not hobbyists think this is a swell site are irrelevant.  RGTraynor  08:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - while the hobby itself is worthy of an article, this website appears not to be. - fchd 06:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Having speedy deleted it once, the article still fails to assert any kind of notability through 3rd party external references etc. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.