Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Failcyclopedia.com

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 : Speedily deleted due to a lack of any claim of notability. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note also: I contacted the Internet Watch Foundation. They have never blacklisted this website. The Google search results that were removed were not from this URL. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Failcyclopedia.com

Fails WP:WEB and WP:N. No sources for verification and none can be found on google news. Heck, the website appears to have been blacklisted by google due to child pornography complaints! Themfromspace (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went ahead and removed all links to the website from the article to be on the safe side. Themfromspace (talk) 08:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I Googled the website and saw no mention of child pornography or any pornography for that matter. I have never whitnessed anything of this nature on Failcyclopedia either. Carbide20 (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well somebody has obviously complained enough to warrant the site being blacklisted by google. If you click on the google search above you'll notice that the actual website doesn't appear in google's rankings. At the bottom of the page is a notice that 10 results from the page (only 6 remain!) were removed due to a legal request submitted to google (read:child porn complaint). Themfromspace (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but it doesnt specifically say that Failcyclopedia was one of the removed websites. It is possible that google just does not have the website indexed. Carbide20 (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets hope that be the case, although it wouldn't bode well for the article's notability. Themfromspace (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear conflict of interest with the articles creator, and frankly the site doesn't seem notable in the least. However, the biggest problem is that it is unsourced and I honestly can't imagine anyone bothering to write anything about the site. A ni Mate 09:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable site. It can become interesing in the future if it manages to grow, but, as for now, it's not notable enough at all to have an article. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2008 (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.