Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuil: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
k |
m →Cuil: k |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:{{la|Cuil}} (<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Cuil|wpReason={{urlencode: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuil]]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuil|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 3#{{anchorencode:Cuil}}|View log]])</noinclude> |
:{{la|Cuil}} (<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Cuil|wpReason={{urlencode: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuil]]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuil|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 3#{{anchorencode:Cuil}}|View log]])</noinclude> |
||
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 [[User:Misterdiscreet|Misterdiscreet]] ([[User talk:Misterdiscreet|talk]]) 21:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC) |
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 [[User:Misterdiscreet|Misterdiscreet]] ([[User talk:Misterdiscreet|talk]]) 21:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
'''Keep''', they're still getting coverage (and a canny scolding) by [http://blogs.zdnet.com/gadgetreviews/?p=338 reliable sources]. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 21:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC) |
* '''Keep''', they're still getting coverage (and a canny scolding) by [http://blogs.zdnet.com/gadgetreviews/?p=338 reliable sources]. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 21:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 21:26, 3 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)