Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macologist

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The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng {chat} 00:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Macologist

Fails to meet WP:WEB, here's the Alexa rank. Kusma (討論) 07:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I see that the Alexa rank argument isn't valid due to Alexa's systemic bias, so this does seem to pass WP:WEB, maybe just barely. It would still be useful to put some of the info below into the article to clarify the website's notability (from WP:WEB: The article in question must document the notability of the described web topic.). And I hereby withdraw my nomination for deletion (does this mean we proceed to speedy keep?) Kusma (討論) 03:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rebuttal

Argument against deletion Does indeed meet WP:WEB, which notes:

  1. Having been the subject of national or international media attention;
  2. A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community; or
  3. Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better.

Although the Alexa rank does not meet this standard, the website qualifies on the other two categories. Also I believe the Alexa toolbar (used for traffic ranking) is a windows-only product, which results in a difficult-to-interpret ranking for sites the cater to a non-windows-specific niche of users.

Explanations below:

1) National Media Attention: Macologist has been mentioned three times in one of the two largest industry (Macintosh computer) print magazines in the US ("MacAddict") three times in two years: Oct 2004, Oct 2005, and Dec 2005. Coverage of Macologist is also frequent in the only other website on this topic of note, macgamefiles.com. The other major magazine is "MacWorld", which uses software developed at Macologist (see below in Impact section).

2) Forum size, verifiable impact: Forum size: The (publicly viewable) forum has > 5000 members. (Currently 8455).

Forum size and media attention as above are extraodinary for such a young site that was only founded in June 2004.

Impact outside forum user community: As for impact beyond its user community, several game publishers refer their users directly to the site for technical support. For example for the popular game Doom 3, at the publisher's site http://www.aspyr.com/games.php/mac/d3/ , click on Support> then Optimization, and there will be a link to Macologist. Also their telephone and email technical support staff will refer users to this Macologist URL. Also note that the website for Feral Interactive also has several direct links to game reviews from Macologist, for example Chessmaster 9000.

References are available from the director of development of Aspyr Media, and the public relations director of Feral Interactive, two of the largest publishers for this platform.

Editors for Macologist have also been recruited into beta testing (Mac Ninjas, console) and other media (Mac Games Radio) http://www.macradio.com/press/igameradio/gamepr051118.php

The largest Macintosh magazine "MacWorld" uses software developed by Macologist for Unreal Tournament 2004 in their benchmarking suite: http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/2005/05/speedmarkblog/index.php

Finally, entering the search term "Macologist" in the Apple.com website will return two entries. The software above used by MacWorld magazine for benchmarking is also listed at Apple.—preceding unsigned comment by Santaduck (talk • contribs) 22:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep as per Santaduck, but I would suggest adding some of that information to the article itself. Confusing Manifestation 12:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Santaduck and add info from his vote to article. Note to users in vote on similar forum above. This is how you should argue a case in Articles for deletion. Capitalistroadster 17:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Santaduck. Flyboy Will 21:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I am still not totally convinced that this makes this website notable. 13000 articles looks like very few for 8000 contributors. Also I don't like that Santaduck is one of the creators of the website, and I have just removed a couple of borderline spammy external links. Kusma (討論) 21:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think it matters. We prefer that people don't write about themselves or their projects because they tend to ignore NPOV and verifiability, but if the article meets those standards, it shouldn't matter who wrote it. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, yes. We should judge the article by the content, not by the creator. I apologize for that comment. Kusma (討論) 03:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as nomination has been withdrawn. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 07:38, 22 December 2005 (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.