Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Techyv: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Tom Morris (talk | contribs) m Listing on WP:DELSORT under Websites |
MikeWazowski (talk | contribs) delete and salt |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
*I've added new references. You are invited to check their reliability. [[User:Boucetta|Boucetta]] ([[User talk:Boucetta|talk]]) 11:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC) |
*I've added new references. You are invited to check their reliability. [[User:Boucetta|Boucetta]] ([[User talk:Boucetta|talk]]) 11:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Websites|list of Websites-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small> —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 14:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)</small> |
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Websites|list of Websites-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small> —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 14:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)</small> |
||
* '''Speedy delete''' and '''nuke from orbit to be sure'''. No indications of notability, references do not establish notability, pure advertising/promotional fluff. [[User:MikeWazowski|MikeWazowski]] ([[User talk:MikeWazowski|talk]]) 16:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:17, 28 August 2011
- Techyv (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. PROD was contested by the author without comment. Borderline A7, I would support a speedy if there is consensus for it here. VQuakr (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Information in lead suggests it is not a notable website (ex. alexa ranking > 100,000) MadCow257 (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I wrote in the first place invalid references. Would you please recheck the references. Boucetta (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I had another look at the links in the article, and none of them are secondary sources that go beyond a trivial listing of the web site. VQuakr (talk) 05:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Is the neatstat.com also a non reliable reference ? Boucetta (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've added new references. You are invited to check their reliability. Boucetta (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete and nuke from orbit to be sure. No indications of notability, references do not establish notability, pure advertising/promotional fluff. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)