Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OurCampaigns

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 delete. W.marsh 16:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OurCampaigns

Non-notable site. 788 google hits for OurCampaigns, and not all of those are relating to the site. ComputerJoe 14:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delelte. As per nom. Advertising. --Sleepyhead 14:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Get a brain, morans. Our Campaigns is a valuable political resource that is mentioned in several other "legitimate" articles. User:James Crews 10:46, 7 February 2006 (EST)
  • Delete 1000 members according to article, No Alexa rank at all, fails WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • My God you are all nerds with no time on your hands Starblind, Sleepyhead81 and ComputerJoe's comments should be ignored because iliveinmymomsbasement.com doesn't rank them among the l33test Everquest players. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James Crews (talk • contribs) 16:34, 7 February 2006.
  • I hope you will consider keeping this entry. OC has more useful information for researchers than Fark.com, which also has a Wikipedia entry. Several other Wikipedia.com entries reference the election returns at OC. Unfortunately, psephologists do not have an organization to rate websites - the only competition to OC would be politics1.com. I realize you need to use objective criteria in making your decisions, and if you decide to remove the entry I will understand. Chronicler3 17:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Chronicler3
  • Delete, interesting site... but ultimately it fails WP:WEB. Hopefully Chronicler3 is more indicative of the user base than Crews. --Isotope23 17:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: An article should not be kept because other sites have articles, even though they are smaller or less notable. Bjelleklang - talk 17:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as alexa, although not extremely reliable does not have any statistics for the site, the article does not give any sources for the facts, according to Google only 13 sites links to OurCampaigns [1], and as the article stands right now it does not pass WP:WEB. Bjelleklang - talk 17:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am a proud member of this website, and registered merely to get across to you the point that OurCampaigns is a legitimate website. A valuable political resource with no real peer in its category. Like I said, several other "legitimate" Wikipedia articles point towards the site, so having this entry merely makes Wikipedia more complete. I've often thought of personally making the OC entry, but it seems users like those above spend far too much time finding information to delete. If anything, your wisdom should be put to use in other entries where there is inaccurate information, or entires that are considered "stubs" should be expanded. This would be of far better use to the "Wikipedia community" than trying to delete all incoming information that doesn't meet some rediculous criteria. If the arguments you all were using to delete it were true, why should we have an article on artist Van Gogh? Surely, selling only one painting in his lifetime doesn't make him a notable artist, does it? I should say right now that I do not represent the bulk of the OC community, I've always been known as the "iconoclast" and "troll" of the website because I use humor in a way to get a point across. Of course, I am reminded of some "no personal attack policy" above. If you feel that you are being attacked with the phrase "GET A BRAIN MORANS" you obviously are uncultured in the political realm, nor do you have a sense of humor. User:James Crews
    • Your vote may be discounted if you only registered to vote. Also, the manner in which you've composed yourself really hasn't done your POV any good. ComputerJoe 08:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As long as Wikipedia links OurCampaigns pages as data sources, it should dignify the site with a page. Anyone who takes the time to inspect the exhaustive database at OC will realize that it is the single most comprehensive and accurate election database on the web. The number of users is irrelevant; any election that happened in the United States in the past century is covered. User:NyBob85
  • Delete non-notable website. Dr Debug (Talk) 19:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, my nerdy, невоспитанный self feels this is non-notable. Adrian Lamo ·· 22:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • comment. can you verify your statement that "As long as Wikipedia links OurCampaigns pages as data sources, it should dignify the site with a page"? What pages? And, be polite, it will do wonders for your argument. --GeLuxe 22:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am not sure of the best way to find links at Wikipedia but here is one reference to OC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gingrey . 141.151.92.228 23:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sorry - that last one was me again - forgot to sign in. Here is another Wikipedia link to OC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovak_presidential_election%2C_2004 . Chronicler3 23:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Chronicler3
  • Comment. Hi, this is the creator of the site. Sorry about some of the comments from a couple of our less politic users. I also didn't put my users up to this, they decided it on their own. I undertand that my site does not quite meet your policies for inclusion, and completely understand if you determine not to include it. I thought it would be helpful to provide some information to come to your decision. I'm not looking for advertising or a huge burst in traffic right now, because our server could not support it. We rely on the slow growth method. We are an extremely data intensive site, in some ways similar to Wikipedia by being a collaborative user effort. Because of this, we have a million or so virtual pages driven by a database. Many of the sites like Alexia and Google have limited information on us because I instruct them in the robots.txt file to not crawl the site. When several search engines try to crawl a million dynamically driven pages every few days it can bring the server to its knees. I am working on something to address this issue, but it will probably not be available for six months to a year. You can see the site statistics directly at http://www.ourcampaigns.com/stats if you wish, that show us getting between 1,500 and 4,500 unique visitors a day, 17,000 pageviews and around 40,000 hits. Those numbers increase sharply around election dates. We have gotten some press, some minor exposure on television news, but those are a bit out of date. We are a different enough site that we don't quite fit into categories for site competitions like best of blog contests as we are not a blog. We may not be a media sensation, but we are a very good data resource for people. Again, thanks for your consideration and if we are not accepted we will try again once we meet your criteria. Entropist 01:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the polite manner in which you've composed yourself. I hope you consider editing more pages on the Wikipedia, I'm sure you'd make a great editor. ComputerJoe 08:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • LISTEN Why are you Wikipedia regulars so hard headed? Listen. This was not a move for advertising. As Parker said, the last thing the site needs is a tremendous influx of users. Several articles point towards OurCampaigns. Why is the only criteria for entry into Wikipedia popularity? Are you seriously telling me something must be "popular" to warrant inclusion into an encyclopedia? How popular is the field of quantum physics? Not very, but it seems to have an entry. OurCampaigns doesn't deserve an entry because it is "popular" and listed on nerdy statistical websites, but rather because it is an expansive collection of political data maintained by every day people, much like this place. The only thing is, we are far more open minded towards data entry. You won't see anyone on OC complaining that the Slovakian presidential election wasn't "popular" enough to warrant inclusion. Excuse the "personal attack" but take your heads out of wherever they may be and look at the site before you actually judge in favor of deletion. This is supposed to be a community of intellectuals, not bickering teenagers concerned with popularity. user:James Crews
    Entry to the encyclopedia is on the basis of notability. For websites guidelines for this are listed here. Regarding your personal attack, wikipedia has policies covering civility and personal attacks. Neither add any strength to your arguments, and arguably undermine them. --pgk(talk) 17:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Starblind. Stifle 18:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:WEB, quite badly. I guarantee there are more people interested in quantum physics than this site. Turnstep 19:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am ready for one of the Wikipedia regulars to remove the entry. This has been frustrating for a lot of people, and I don't see any reason to let it continue. The last comment by Turnstep was rather discouraging - on the list of topics not found interesting by a lot of people are anti-heroes and Goat Head Soup. There is a difference between popularity and significance. The chronicling of USA's election returns in one place is not popular but is significant. Goat's Head Soup is neither. Chronicler3 23:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Chronicler3
  • Comment to above: AFD procedure is to list an article for 5 days. Also, popularity is not the only issue, as you state yourself, but I believe that if something is significant enough, it is usually also reknown by quite alot of people. The site might be famous sometime in the future, but as of right now, alexa doesn't even have a rating for it [2]; google returns 51 pages when I searched for "A collaborative political resource" [3], and 881 when I searched for ourcampaigns [4], with most of the hits going to various collections of links. Bjelleklang - talk 02:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable per google hits and alexa. -- Pierremenard 09:02, 12 February 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.