Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobonit News

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Bobonit News

Not notable, 128 google hits, seems quite dodgy site, not professional, POV.--Silversmith 22:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Note that Bobonit is the same article but much smaller and is up for VfD as well.--Silversmith 22:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• I replaced it with a copyvio notice, which the author removed. He's now claimed on the article talk page that he authored the website too. Which makes this an advertisement for a nonnotable website. Delete even if it turns out not to have been a copyright violation. Postdlf 19:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Abysmally low Alexa rating of 4,952,239, for what it's worth. Postdlf 20:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Only 25 sites link to bobonit.com according to Google. Delete --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Unless the guy supplies some proof that he is, indeed, the author, it's still a copyvio, and the copyvio process should be followed from here. RickK 21:34, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • No harm in judging both at once; it's preferable at any rate to assess the notability and...um...encyclopedicness...of the subject matter now rather than waiting until the copyvio is deleted and the article comes back as a rewritten stub. Two birds, one stone, so on. Postdlf 20:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Not notable - Longhair | Talk 21:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as your choice of copyvio, advertisement, or lack of notability. --Carnildo 22:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, doesn't seem very noteworthy. It's just some guy and a blog. Come on, how is that noteworthy? Oh, and low Google hits don't help his case either. Master Thief Garrett 22:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, copyright violation. Megan1967 05:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Save bobonit

Wow You guys are animals I really feel like a virgin! But instead of all the crtics how about a teacher?. How about some instructive criticism and I will try to learn the Wiki culture and how to navigate Wikiland. I am learning about the Wikiworld very quickly can we all just get along?

Information about reported Google hits!

Google hits for bobonit =  Results 1 - 10 of about 1,940 for bobonit. (0.11 seconds)
Google hits for bobonit news = Results 1 - 10 of about 710 for bobonit news. (0.05 seconds) 
Google hits for bob's blog news = Results 1 - 10 of about 165,000 for bob's blog news. (0.16 seconds)

NOTE: The Blog was number one and the website number two in ALL reports seems somewhat Notable? Image:Clipboard01bobs_blog.jpg

Image of Google results at 11:58 pm 05-03-05

I would like to try to write a much smaller entry if that would help?

--Rocdad 07:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, "bob's blog news" does not exist at all on Google [1]. You may want to try "" next time you google, otherwise every article with the word "news", "blog" and "bob's" comes up, hence the high number of results.--Silversmith 08:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

  No, a smaller entry wouldn't help, because the issue in this VfD is whether the subject of the website should have an article, not how it is written. I concur with Silversmith's analysis of the google hits, and restate that the site's extremely low Alexis ranking is rather fatal to any claim that the website is notable. Or do we have other articles on websites that have Alexis ratings of close to 5,000,000? Postdlf 20:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Save Bobonit News: First and foremost there were no copy right violations!. Counting on the Google algorithm to decide if a site is notable seems foolish to me, but since everyone seems fascinated by them and I was quite impressed myself in the results and was amazed at what I thought was extremely positive results in SEO.
• The keyword results from Google for bobs blog news (screen shot) (1, 2 on page one), is NOTABLE by itself since the goal with Google is to get your keywords to return your URL in the top results of at least the first few pages, to actually have the first and second result on the first page out of 165,000 hits with such common words is incredible compare that to the Drudge report (1, 2 on page one), FOX News (1,2 on page one) and those are with only two words much easier than three common words.
• “Bob’s blog news” in quotes is not the point since that is not the actual or full name for the article entry just related keywords. Bobonit or Bobonit News both return 1, 2 on first page with quotes or no quotes!
• I have checked ALEXA and it shows the old website and the entry is at least 2 years old and I have never optimized for great ALEXA results but the result they show puts http://Bobonit.com in the top 10% of World Wide Web I believe I guess it is a matter of perspective. I assume ALEXIS is a misspelling? --Rocdad 10:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
• And how in the hell do you get the words to wrap in this text?
• Delete. Self-promotion, not notable. 105 unique hits for bobonit; a whopping 14 for "bobonit news". Being on the first page of results for a Google search this specific is completely meaningless. If your site came up first on a search for, say, "news blog", then we might have something. The Google Test is meant to judge an article subject's notability based on the raw number of hits for a specific phrase. I have no clue where you get the idea that the Alexa ranking means that your site is "in the top 10% of World Wide Web." There are nearly five million sites that are more frequently visited than yours. android↔talk 12:38, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.