Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mylifeoftravel.com

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 Delete - after discounting sockpuppets/unsigned. Stifle 22:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - This is a slick, innovative site offering genuine value to users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.242.4 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Mylifeoftravel.com

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Only gets 500 google hits, half of which don't even refer to this site. Alexa rating can be found here. Appears to be nothing more than a nn advertisement. Delete. --Hetar 19:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:WEB. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 20:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

How does 500 hits make it any less of a quality blogging platform? Surely the quality of the publishing platform would enable it to maintain a page as do the competitive platforms?

• Leave Calanh 20:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Verifiable and Notable, gonna go with Keeping this. --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Alexa ranking for Vogue.com, possibly the best known fashion magazine worldwide, is almost 2 million positions lower. Would that suggest it shouldn't be classified as a relevant fashion publication? Find the Vogue ranking here here. Calanh 20:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Vogue is notable as a magazine not a website, so Alexa rankings don't apply --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB, at the moment; low on the barometer with that Alexa rank, and I'm not finding any non-trivial media mentions of the site. (For the record, the Vogue comparison is irrelevant: Vogue is a magazine first and foremost, and that is what makes it notable. Its website, whether it meets WP:WEB or not, has no influence on its notability one way or the other.) --Kinu ^t/_c 21:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Netimperative is a leader in UK IT News and hardly trivial. I do not believe a site which has a strong userbase and unique blogging technology should be discounted purely due to it being relatively new. There are 3 technology process patents being filed for the MLOT technology and the company has been made several acquisition offers. Considering the number of blogging sites maintaining pages, I see no reason for it not to be included. —This unsigned comment was added by 84.92.162.108 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete: smells like Spamvertising. Stev0 23:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Eivind^t@c 04:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Spam and non-notable spam at that. Fishhead64 07:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Fishhead - Perhaps reviewing the site yourself is slightly fairer than your insulting dismissal of a unique product that a team of developers dedicated 2 years of their lives to producing. The most advanced interactive map of its kind, a sharing system more advanced than any other and a comprehensive information resource is hardly 'non-notable spam'. I won't reduce myself to your level but with editors like yourself on Wiki I would question your motivation or rather, your comprehension of user-generated content and its value.
    • What's insulting? I was being descriptive. I could spend two years polishing a turd, but it would still be a turd. Fishhead64 17:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I must say, the fact that one has to register on the site in question in order to view the "sample" blog linked from the article is an ingenious method of advertising. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Thanks for clarifying that. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, you don't have to log in to view the sample page. I made a mistake and put a forward slash at the end of the URL.

• Keep - I am one of the directors of MLOT and poster of the page and I take offense at being called spam. You have a list of [social networking websites] on Wikipedia which include sites with far small userbases and which are not comprehensive products, let alone have unique patented technology offering products that no other blogging platform does. Delete this if you like but you are using Wikipedia as an anti-competitive platform when you discriminate based on the opinions of a few people who have probably not taken the time to explore the site themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calanh (talk • contribs)
• As is, this reads as advertcruft. Does not (as yet) appear to claim notability on account of the to-be-patented technology, but rather on the basis of its content. -- Simon Cursitor 08:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Fair comment except we cannot disclose the technology as yet.

• • If you remove this page I would like clarity as to why there are 1940 social networking sites, many of which are poorly developed, unknown and contain no Google rank, listed on the Wiki site? MLOT is a reputable product with a growth of nearly 30 times its expectation for this early in its lifecycle. I am not a spammer and I am sure anyone researching the site will understand its popularity.
    • Please provide examples, as if they are in fact as non-notable as you claim, those should be considered for deletion as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 22:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. Probable vanity. Stifle 00:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Verifiable and Notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.252.64.1 (talk • contribs)
• Keep - Verifiable and Notable.It is oustanding —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.94.223 (talk • contribs)
• Keep - Verifiable and Notable -- MLOT is a reputable site which provides a great service to both registered users and visitors. It enables people living overseas, travellers etc to keep people around the world updated on their latest movements. The map facility is a great tool which I have not seen on any similar site. I don't understand how anyone could classify a site such as this as SPAM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.153.219.170 (talk • contribs)
• Keep - Engaging site. Very easy to use and manage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.151.99 (talk • contribs)
• Comment: Does anonymous sock puppetry ever work, especially the kind that comes in a flood and doesn't even attempt to address the problems cited by others? I'm going to guess and say "no"... --Kinu ^t/_c 17:38, 6 April 2006 (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.