Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Fluffy Industries

This page is preserved as an archive of the associated article page's "votes for deletion" debate (the forerunner of articles for deletion). Please do not modify this page, nor delete it as an orphaned talk page.

from VfD:

A non-notable website with an Alexa ranking of about 180,000. Cdc 21:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Move to Lore Sjöberg; this, his current project, may not be notable, but Sjöberg himself was pretty notable as part of the Brunching Shuttlecocks. (Note: Maybe a good idea to merge Lore Brand Comics in there as well...) -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here are some Alexa rankings of other web sites that have entries on Wikipedia, some of them fairly lengthy. Note that most of these rankings are lower than that of the site whose entry is being questioned.

Adequacy.org	253,530
All Media Guide	316,146
The Best Page in the Universe	137,914
Canadian Money Tracker	1,866,826
CBC Radio Three	124,444
Doomworld	184,413
EvoWiki	1,489,154
Literary Kicks	369,944
MediaLens	171,722
Ninja Burger	178,804
Operation Clambake	131,708
OpenHistory	1,444,557
Pathetic Poetry Society	942,454
PlanetMath	132,356
Québécois Libre	253,276
REDtv.org	148,736
SatireWire	150,596
Ship of Fools	254,603
Solar Conflict	1,460,172
SourceryForge	1,191,655
Thepalace.com	110,903
Things My Girlfriend and I Have Argued About	400,986
ukonline.gov.uk	224,309
Wikia	371,889

As you can see, this is not a particularly high bar. This website offers an unusual service. The article should remain and be allowed to grow over time. Schmeitgeist 00:15, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Alexa ratings are rather unreliable, I've heard. Vote on the page's merits, not Alexa's rankings. Ergo, Delete. hfool 01:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agree that Alexa as a criterion for noteworthiness is moonshine. This, though, sounds like just another combination blog and web-directory: at least some of the other sites have things that make them noteworthy no matter how much or little traffic they get. If Lore Sjöberg is himself notable, and it seems he might be, all his several projects would be most profitably merged in a single entry under his name. -- Smerdis of Tlön 02:41, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete: nonnotable website. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:18, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Notability - or lack of - is not grounds for deletion. See also m:Wiki is not paper. Dan100 10:40, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Delete --fvw * 11:48, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

Delete. I used to read 'The Brunching Suttlecocks', and I liked it greatly; but even that does not, I believe, merit an article on Wikipedia. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:10, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Mark Richards 21:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. If a person trots out the old "Wikipedia is not paper" warhorse, it is almost always a good indication that an article is worthy of deletion. Elf-friend 09:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Seconded. Server bandwidth may not cost quite as much as paper, but it is hardly free. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. This site is actually noteworthy as a more friendly alternative to massive Flash game sites such as Newgrounds, and is growing in popularity. It already has a loyal fanbase of daily visitors, and a Google search for "little fluffy industries" gets 3,140 hits, most of them from blogs and message boards as people link to this neat little site they just found, suggesting that it will continue to grow in popularity. This is well within the bounds of what Wikipedia should include. The Newgrounds article is a good example of the potential that Little Fluffy Industries could achieve. --LostLeviathan 21:54, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The problem is, is it notable yet? "The potential" which something "could achieve" is always a matter of guesswork, not fact, and Wikipedia has no crystal ball which can settle the question of which guesswork will be borne out by events. If we keep this article because LFI has potential and there are things which suggest that it will continue to grow, it serves as a precedent for every garage band, every webcomic, every start-up company, which will insist that they surely have incredible amounts of future success ahead of them and so they are just as entitled to a Wikipedia article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion