Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pojo.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 was Delete. The article fails to prove its notability, and does not describe the website in a encyclopedic manner (contrary to Faith Freedom International who also received significant independent coverage). -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pojo.com

Pojo.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article about non-notable website. Article is unsourced (WP:A), doesn't appear to meet the guidelines for notable web content (WP:WEB), and is written like a guide to the site (WP:NOT#IINFO). NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, just in case this interests anyone: Pojo.com Alexa rank 22,696; Faith Freedom International Alexa ranking 49,816. It didn't make up my mind but it's a good idea to compare to other articles (that have survived many AfDs). gren グレン 08:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no reliable sources, fails WP:WEB. Alexa is not notability, and neither is Google, though a mere 377 unique Ghits [1] is worth noting. EliminatorJR ^Talk 11:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB. --Evb-wiki 12:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, borderline A7. It's a well written article and such, but I can't see any claim to why it's notable and as mentioned above, no references. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 16:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, strictly going by their own site (not preferred, but it's the simplest way to show this), the assertion of notability is "Pojo.com is the Internet's premiere location for the most popular of Gaming issues" . If so, it'd certainly merit inclusion. However, I don't know if it is so or not. FrozenPurpleCube 02:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The problem is that 1) There's no reliable sources to back up such a claim, and 2) the description as a "premier location for the most popular of Gaming issues" is way too vague. Do they mean tabletop or video games? In either case, I'd say there are bigger and more notable sites to deal with issues from either medium. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 10:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Um, that would be why I said "If so" and pointed out that it's only them saying so. It is however, still an obvious claim to notability, even though self-asserted. Whether or not you disagree or consider it vague isn't the issue. It's whether any reliable sources also say so. And I mostly bring it up to refute the speedy deletion claims. That would not be an appropriate action in this case. But beyond that, there is the book publication issue to consider as well. FrozenPurpleCube 14:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable website that is a blatant violation of WP:WEB. Speedy if possible. -=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 00:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Hmm, well besides a website, they've published books/magazines with H&S Media, Inc. (Which may merit an article itself, given that it's had sales over 50 million $ a year) and more recently with Scholastic. These books are available at retail stores like Wal-mart, Target, and B&N as well as online from Amazon.com. I'm not sure if that means the site merits inclusion or not on that basis, but it does need to be examined. In any case, though, google searches and alexa rankings are flawed, especially so when you have to exclude the website itself. Therefore, I suggest not making any decision based on that. In any case, this should not be speedied, but given the full five days for folks to discuss this. FrozenPurpleCube 02:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Don't Delete. Encyclopedias have articles to inform readers, and regardless of how "notable" or "valuable" it may be, someone will probably come along and want a wiki on Pojo. You should look at some of the useless articles we have on here. We have tiny little stubs on some of the most unimportant subjects but I'm sure someone must want to know the history of a pencil. Fock Yeah Seaking 11:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are actually many concerns about the existence of useless and stub articles on Wikipedia, but that isn't a good argument to keep an article. It would be better if you took a look at WP:WEB or WP:CORP and see if you can meet any of the criteria there. FrozenPurpleCube 16:51, 3 June 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.