Team Fortress Wiki:Archived discussions/Talk:Backpack.tf

Deletion

The community site pages and navbox is not for listing your website to squeeze traffic. It is for documenting notable community websites. This means that the website has seen extensive use and has otherwise left a mark. Since this one has existed for about a month from what evidence I can find. I'm not seeing much purpose of listing it here. -- Lagg 10:47, 19 June 2012 (PDT)

 Yes Agree for all the stated reasons, notability/NPOV. User:Darkid/Sig 10:45, 19 June 2012 (PDT)

 Agree with this rZ 10:48, 19 June 2012 (PDT)

 Agree I've heard of this site, but it's not notable at all. Balladofwindfishes 11:01, 19 June 2012 (PDT)

 Disagree What a disappointment to see this page has been deleted. I run backpack.tf, and while the "backpack.tf" domain has only been registered recently, the site itself has been active since November 2011 under backpack.teamfortress.org / tf2wh.teamfortress.org domains -- It is a community site that is used by many and should be listed. Your personal opinion and 2 additional votes from your friends should not be enough to delete a page, now that's my opinion. I strongly suggest you try this google search and you hopefully will realize this was not created for self-publicity. The amount of links you will find, within a "1 month life span" of a site might be overwhelming. You can try searching for "backpack.teamfortress.org" and "tf2wh.teamfortress.org" afterwards (which all redirect to backpack.tf now, btw) -- I don't need the tf2 wiki to get traffic, but I do feel it is a notable tool that deserves its place on here. Ruiner 11:23, 21 June 2012 (PDT)

 Yes Agree more. Above we see a plea from the owner. If you go to our ambiguosly named old sites (which we still haven't heard of) they redirect to here. If you search in google for "backpack.tf", you find our site. Wait... what? Well of course you do! If I search in google for "tf2 backpack" this comes up on page 2, after an available Android app. Not notable. Also, I don't need the tf2 wiki to get traffic. That's not what this is for. Your feeling (as the owner) of notability is irrelevant, compared to three (4, whatever) pseudo-random tf2 players' opinions. Darkid 11:32, 21 June 2012 (PDT)

 Disagree I'm sure that I will incur the wrath of the suck ups for this but I feel that criticism and even deletion of a page should be left to those that are impartial and knowledgeable of the subject. Lagg, on this subject, is not and shouldn't go around deleting pages that may detract from traffic to OPTF2. I've used the site for around 9 months now and I feel that it is relevant to the TF2 community. I have nothing to gain by saying this, I simply feel that you are in the wrong. Wstroud 02:28, 2 July 2012 (PDT)

I'm sure that I will incur the wrath of the suck ups- Ouch. Great way to start out and then accuse us of not being impartial. Knowledgable of the subject- I for one spent about 500 hours in the trading community, and I've never even heard of this site. May detract from traffic to OPTF2- What? How is that relevant at all?

Notability is tricky to measure; but I'd say 25% (1 of 4) isn't very notable. If I asked how many of you had heard of say TF2Outpost or TF2TP I'd get 4/4. 50% would be IMO a baseline of notability, striving for ~66%.

A final pair of notes: I've used the site for around 9 months and a "1 month life span". Wait a minute. Also, you haven't made an edit in nearly a year (Nov '11), what prompted you to pipe up now? Darkid (|) 04:11, 2 July 2012 (PDT)

I'm not sure how optf2 is relevant to this, nor am I sure how extra links would affect traffic in any way. I have no reason to compromise my history of being impartial for a single page. I keep the two websites separate, and it isn't even me who maintains its page because of risk of bias. So no, that argument is not going to work. I tried and failed to find anything that made this website notable. There's no ulterior motives here, sorry to have gotten your hopes up. -- Lagg 05:38, 2 July 2012 (PDT)

The problem with the content guidelines is that they're still not officially part of our set of guidelines, even though they should be. In any case, that particular quote refers to author involvement with a page about their own website. It is also not directed at staff members, who are basically expected to assume good faith anyway. There were votes here that agree with the lack of notability, and a talk in the IRC channel about it. It is hard to debate when the vote to delete was unanimous. I have no conflict of interest because this page was not related to OPTF2, and OPTF2 is in no way, shape, or form threatened by it. This is purely a matter of notability. Nothing else, and insisting otherwise will get the discussion nowhere. Edit: It seems the author of the line that was above this one removed it. -- Lagg 06:19, 2 July 2012 (PDT)