Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deceiver.com
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deceiver.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- Delete - A non-notable blog and non-notable blogger. The article depends almost entirely on primary sources, suffers a poverty of reliable third-party coverage and hence does not meet the notability threshold. In addition, the page is orphaned and will likely remain so. [1] This blog receives only a bare mention in 3 or 4 online publications: Slate, [2] ocregister.com, and a brief nod in The Daily Telegraph (Australia) [3]. But the article stretches these sources well beyond breaking point. According to the site's own "about" page, "Deceiver.com is a project of Hat Tip Media". [4] There is not a single mention of "Hat Tip Media" anywhere on the Internet. [5] It would appear the proprietor of Deceiver.com (James Seaver, a.k.a. "Oversneer") has been busy promoting his blog all over the Internet, mostly in the comment section of other blogs, in an effort to push up its page rank. Deceive.com further solicited their readers to create this page here on Wikipedia, which they happily did, including a section to its very own online Shop. Interestingly and perhaps tellingly, the proprietor also nominated Deceiver.com for 4 "Blogger Choice Awards", but garnered zero support, receiving not a single vote. Best Gossip Blog: Deceiver.com = 0 votes [6]
- Delete - Harsh, but valid and supported by facts, especially the part about the self promotion and Blogger Choice Awards. And I could not help but scoff when they presented the Wiki page as being some spontaneous, unexpected event when they in fact emailed their supporters to ask someone to step up and create the page. Thesetrixaintforkids (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete = Sadly I looked into this and found that, yeah, the comments above are correct. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per above. -- 7triton7 (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. -- samj inout 16:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.