![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2013 February 1. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website. Can find no overage in Independent reliable sources. Ridernyc ( talk) 07:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
"Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even web content that editors personally believe are "important" or "famous" are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice. No web content is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of content it is. If the individual web content has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other web content of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists (see "If it's not notable", below). When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. High-traffic websites are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller websites can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger websites."
This site has been referenced as a project that no one cares about, but its an educational tool that is currently ranked 150,543 in the US and 1,160,994 World Wide not bad for educational website for an unpopular profession. The fact that it has been noticed by other independent sources meets the standard under the notability guidelines. Deciding whether the independent sources are notable is not within your purview to decide especially when they meet the test of an independent source. Dhooper383 ( talk) 23:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply
![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2013 February 1. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website. Can find no overage in Independent reliable sources. Ridernyc ( talk) 07:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
"Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even web content that editors personally believe are "important" or "famous" are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice. No web content is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of content it is. If the individual web content has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other web content of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists (see "If it's not notable", below). When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. High-traffic websites are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller websites can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger websites."
This site has been referenced as a project that no one cares about, but its an educational tool that is currently ranked 150,543 in the US and 1,160,994 World Wide not bad for educational website for an unpopular profession. The fact that it has been noticed by other independent sources meets the standard under the notability guidelines. Deciding whether the independent sources are notable is not within your purview to decide especially when they meet the test of an independent source. Dhooper383 ( talk) 23:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply