Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mindat.org

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mindat.org

Tagged for speedy deletion as "Nonnotable, Alexa rank 93,672, 119 google links". There's a comment on the talk page discussing notability. No vote. Kappa 01:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As the creator of the mindat.org website and the mindat.org entry on Wikipedia I will of course respect any decision made on this matter, because of the sites status within the mineralogical and geological communities I thought it was worth adding an entry about it, I have tried to keep the entry factual and consistent with Wiki style. No vote. --Jolyonralph 01:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Hmmm oook weak keep. I just wish someone else had written it, Joly. Not good practice to write articles on your own site, looks like self-promotion. --Halidecyphon 06:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: It may not get the most google hits but it's value as a mineralogical database makes it noteworthy. In cases like these I feel that the issue is not lack of notability in general but rather the smaller size of the communities, mineralogical and geological in this instance, that would give it higher hit rates or Alexa ranking. --Fuzzball! (talk) 09:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment How are you expecting a large community given the nature of the subject? SYSS Mouse 14:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but start a hostile takeover process to merge all content from Mindat into Wikipedia ;) Radiant_* 09:11, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with taking the mineral data from mindat.org and pasting it into wikipedia - these are scientific facts and aren't subject to copyright (although you might find the data on other sites such as webmineral.com is better suited for that purpose). Photos are copyright of their original posters so you'd have to check with them before using. I have made some changes to the mineralogy section on Wikipedia in the past, correcting some mistakes, and I'll continue to come back to do the same. --Jolyonralph 17:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Minerals isn't as wide a field as pop culture, so I'm not going to trust google or Alexa on this one. Keep as noteworthy database. Mgm|^(talk) 09:53, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Useful technical database on minerals, keep--nixie 11:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Wait, what? Why wouldn't this be notable? Strong keep. DS 12:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, classic demonstration of weakness of google testing for encyclopedic nature. Klonimus 16:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - there are three excellent sources for online mineral info that I use regularly and add to most mineral articles on Wiki as ext. links and/or refs. and Mindat is the least commercial of the three. Search for any mineral name on google and Mindat is there, that's a bunch more than the 119 hits reported above. -Vsmith 14:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)#
  • It's funny, the 119 number is approximately right for unique hits, I guess wikipedia only gets counted for once. Kappa 19:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this is indeed a very important database for mineralogists Moumine
• Keep. Some cleanup woudn't make a harm, too. Pavel Vozenilek 00:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.