User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2006/July

Article for deletion: Torrent finder

Hi, I hope you can take some time to vote on the AFD debate for the Torrent finder article (i noticed you had nominated another torrent site earlier). The debate is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torrent finder. thx! Zzzzz 11:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Web design award

{{speedy}}'s faster! ;-) - CobaltBlueTony 17:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Er, yeah, it is, but the article doesn't meet any criteria of WP:CSD, unfortunately. Sandstein 17:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah! Never realized the purpose of prod until now. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony 17:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for addng those tags to my latest article

I Didn't know it needed that much cleanup

--Showmanship is the key 20:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sandstein 20:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

La Salle University

Guys, chill...I'm working on them now...I agree with you 100% Lasallefan 20:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

RAOGK deletion request

I would like to suggest that the Random Acts of Genealogical Kindness listing meets the standards listed at WP:WEB

It has received multiple awards as seen here.

FYI, I have no commercial interest in this group, I have only volunteered once or twice to function as a regional photographer for interested parties. In fact, it functions much like Wikipedia in that volunteers are the sole source of activities for its services. It is not a commercial enterprise in anyway that I am aware of.

With this information at hand, would you consider removing your categorization for requested deletion? Or do you have any constructive suggestions as to how I can update the listing to Wikipedia standards?

Sincerely, Mactographer

Hello! You should add the fact that it received awards (and the link) to the article, but I'm not sure whether these awards are "well known and independent" per WP:WEB. Remember, we're not a listing of all the websites out there. We only list notable websites. The article must reflect this site's notability.

You can delete the {{prod}} tag yourself if you disagree with the rapid deletion. But people can still nominate it for regular deletion. Best, Sandstein 21:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you consider that it's had over a million hits in it's lifetime an indication that it is somewhat notable?

Alexa.com has some 225 links coming into it: http://www.alexa.com/data/ds/linksin?q=link:raogk.org/&linksin=225&page=1&url=raogk.org

Even an Italian (I think) version of Wikipedia seems to link to it here as 7th in a huge listing of other similar sites: http://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskuto:Genealogio

I might delete your deletion request as suggested, but I would prefer consensus -- which is why I'd rather dialog with you first about it. However, I am new to Wikipedia, so I’m not sure how to make a case and where to do it. The navigation is very complex on this site. Even reading the rules for inclusion is a marathon task which seems to link all over the place. I’m not complaining, but it is difficult for a newcomer.

Thanks,

Mactographer

P.S. I found a link to it from Freepedia? http://en.freepedia.org/Genealogy.html#Volunteerism

Is that a branch of Wikipedia?

As you may know, hits indicate little, what with search engines, bots etc. all generating hits, plus they're not independently verifiable. When it comes to Alexa and notability, we often look at the traffic ranking, which is 1,002,426 in this case. That's not overwhelming. Besides, neither traffic nor it being linked to (especially from wikis) is a notability criterion under WP:WEB.

But I now see that it has received press coverage, as linked to in the article, so the removal of the PROD is warranted. You're making your case very well, incidentally, but I think it's most important that an article reflects the fact that its subject is notable, or some bored Wikignome such as I will nominate it for deletion.

I don't know what Freepedia is, but it looks like someone is leeching off Wikipedia by reproducing its content in his own setting. That's allowed under GFDL. In this case, it's just an older version of our own genealogy article.

I'm copying this to article talk for future reference. Best, Sandstein 04:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)