Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Techyv

Techyv

(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)[reply]

Delete Information in lead suggests it is not a notable website (ex. alexa ranking > 100,000) MadCow257 (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote in the first place invalid references. Would you please recheck the references. Boucetta (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Is the neatstat.com also a non reliable reference ? Boucetta (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added new references. You are invited to check their reliability. Boucetta (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Speedy delete - Pure weapons-grade vanispamcruftisement lacking WP:RS to satisfy WP:WEB or WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 71.166.154.41 (talk · contribs) _{17:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Strong delete, no prejudice to speedy A7 or possibly G11. No notability whatsoever, no third-party coverage. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry. I don't understand how do you consider this article "purely" advertising. I would prefer more explicit arguments.

Concerning notability, I've changed the references. Are you sure you have checked their reliability ? And does that mean that every valid article in wikipedia database has good references that meets this encyclopedia standards. Thanks. Boucetta (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right in that there are many articles on Wikipedia which do not meet the sourcing or notability guidelines. However, where these are noticed by established editors, we try to improve them or, if they are simply not about notable subjects, delete them. With regard to this particular article: the website is not a source which will establish its own notability; likewise, websites like alexa or siteinformer that aggregate information about websites automatically without some kind of entry barrier which is meaningful to our notability guideline for web content are not useful for establishing notability. Prlog, as far as I can see, is a place for press releases to be distributed; the article in question looks to be self-published and as such is not useful either, at least for notability purposes. While all these are adequate to back up a particular point, the subject as a whole must be shown to be notable by use of reliable sources. sonia♫ 01:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - None of those "references" meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources (did you read and understand WP:General notability guideline?) … self-published sources, e.g., the subject's own website, are particularly unreliable … Alexa rankings are meaningless in this context, as are press releases (www.prlog.org is not notable enough to have its own article, nor is Website Informer) … and yes, if an article lacks references that meet Wikipedia standards, then it is deleted. — 71.166.154.41 (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]