Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spill.Com: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
ch from keep to delete |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
:*'''Comment''': See [[WP:BURDEN]] and [[WP:GHITS]], but since you asked: #1 valid ref; #2 and #5 valid ref, but seems more about parent company; #3 and #4 seems to be be a restatement of a PR piece so appears to fall into the [[WP:WEB#Criteria]] 1b) exception of "trivial coverage"; #6 does not appear to reference Spill.com. So that leaves one valid ref and two sort-of refs, which doesn't meet [[WP:WEB#Criteria]] 1). The other ''News'' links are reprints of PR from Spill.com. -- [[User:Gogo Dodo|Gogo Dodo]] ([[User talk:Gogo Dodo|talk]]) 15:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC) |
:*'''Comment''': See [[WP:BURDEN]] and [[WP:GHITS]], but since you asked: #1 valid ref; #2 and #5 valid ref, but seems more about parent company; #3 and #4 seems to be be a restatement of a PR piece so appears to fall into the [[WP:WEB#Criteria]] 1b) exception of "trivial coverage"; #6 does not appear to reference Spill.com. So that leaves one valid ref and two sort-of refs, which doesn't meet [[WP:WEB#Criteria]] 1). The other ''News'' links are reprints of PR from Spill.com. -- [[User:Gogo Dodo|Gogo Dodo]] ([[User talk:Gogo Dodo|talk]]) 15:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
::Thinking about it more, it seems to be a popular site but not have enough reliable coverage. Until more reliable sources cover the site, I'm inclined to agree that it should be deleted. --[[User:Odie5533|Odie5533]] ([[User talk:Odie5533|talk]]) 16:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC) |
::Thinking about it more, it seems to be a popular site but not have enough reliable coverage. Until more reliable sources cover the site, I'm inclined to agree that it should be deleted. --[[User:Odie5533|Odie5533]] ([[User talk:Odie5533|talk]]) 16:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
:* I strongly disagree. I is nonsensical to delete the page untill it cites more reliable sources as more reliable sources cannot be added to the page if it has been deleted. The best thing to do is to simply leave the website up for the time being and if it doesn't have more reible sources and citation by an alloted time, then it should be deleted. [[Special:Contributions/92.251.175.206|92.251.175.206]] ([[User talk:92.251.175.206|talk]]) 19:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:08, 9 October 2009
- Spill.Com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable website. No reliable sources covering site. Fails WP:WEB. Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete -
Plenty of reliable sources. Did you click the News link in your AfD? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. And a million and a half hits on Google for the site (excluding the half million index hits of of the site itself).--Odie5533 (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: See WP:BURDEN and WP:GHITS, but since you asked: #1 valid ref; #2 and #5 valid ref, but seems more about parent company; #3 and #4 seems to be be a restatement of a PR piece so appears to fall into the WP:WEB#Criteria 1b) exception of "trivial coverage"; #6 does not appear to reference Spill.com. So that leaves one valid ref and two sort-of refs, which doesn't meet WP:WEB#Criteria 1). The other News links are reprints of PR from Spill.com. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thinking about it more, it seems to be a popular site but not have enough reliable coverage. Until more reliable sources cover the site, I'm inclined to agree that it should be deleted. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. I is nonsensical to delete the page untill it cites more reliable sources as more reliable sources cannot be added to the page if it has been deleted. The best thing to do is to simply leave the website up for the time being and if it doesn't have more reible sources and citation by an alloted time, then it should be deleted. 92.251.175.206 (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)