Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuil: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
→Cuil: cmt |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
*'''Keep''' You have to be kidding. Cuil was all over the news, so there's copious reliable sources. [[User:Squidfryerchef|Squidfryerchef]] ([[User talk:Squidfryerchef|talk]]) 04:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' You have to be kidding. Cuil was all over the news, so there's copious reliable sources. [[User:Squidfryerchef|Squidfryerchef]] ([[User talk:Squidfryerchef|talk]]) 04:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
**Maybe you should actually, oh, I dunno, '''read''' [[WP:NOT#NEWS]] and [[WP:RECENTISM]]. There are also copious reliable sources on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Patterson]] but that didn't help her stay around. To quote from the policy you've clearly not bothered to read, "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own.". [[User:Misterdiscreet|Misterdiscreet]] ([[User talk:Misterdiscreet|talk]]) 12:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC) |
**Maybe you should actually, oh, I dunno, '''read''' [[WP:NOT#NEWS]] and [[WP:RECENTISM]]. There are also copious reliable sources on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Patterson]] but that didn't help her stay around. To quote from the policy you've clearly not bothered to read, "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own.". [[User:Misterdiscreet|Misterdiscreet]] ([[User talk:Misterdiscreet|talk]]) 12:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::From [[WP:Company]]: ''An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.'' The article's cited references speak louder than. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 13:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 13:29, 4 September 2008
- Cuil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
violates WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM. the only notable thing cuil has done, to date, is release a press release making wild claims that were parroted on news sites and that then turned out not to be true. cuil had their 15 minutes of fame. if they somehow manage to become relevant, then yeah, they deserve a wikipedia article, but that has yet to happen Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, they're still getting coverage (and a canny scolding) by reliable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep You have to be kidding. Cuil was all over the news, so there's copious reliable sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe you should actually, oh, I dunno, read WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM. There are also copious reliable sources on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Patterson but that didn't help her stay around. To quote from the policy you've clearly not bothered to read, "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own.". Misterdiscreet (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- From WP:Company: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The article's cited references speak louder than. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)