Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merry media

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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry media

Non-notable media news website, being link-spammed across the entire Wikipedia. No Alexa ranking. No sites link to it on Google. Page Rank is 2/10. --Kiand 16:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=merry+media&meta= try following that link. I don't own the site but it is clear that where the link has been placed is relevant to the site. Why do you disagree with that? If you consider links to be spam then you must look acorss the thousands of articles for thousands of spam links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merrymedia (talk • contribs) 16:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22merry+media%22&btnG=Search&meta= would be more accurate. And it finds 308 hits, in total. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiand (talk • contribs) 16:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:WEB; close to being CSD db-empty; probable spam entry from User:Merrymedia who claims not own the site but is sufficient a fan to choose its name for his/her username. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 16:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising spam. Humansdorpie 16:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete the article if you wish as I said it isnt my website but then same sites as merry media are digital spy and they have listings on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merrymedia (talk • contribs) 16:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Spy, with an Alexa rank of 3,079, is many orders of magnitude more notable --Kiand 16:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kiand. I don't think a rewrite could save this either. Peyna 17:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I already said I would delete the links, but why delete the article? Notable isn't an issue, it is still a thing in existance. delete if you wish no doubt one day someone else will make the ariticle again or will you delete that from them as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merrymedia (talk • contribs) 17:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notability IS an issue, read WP:WEB. This site meets none of the requirements. --Kiand 17:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of things that exist that don't belong in an encyclopedia. See Third desk from the left in the second row from the back of Room 302, Bogstandard Junior School, Hamlet, Somerset. Peyna 17:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry media, You could check what color tie George W. Bush wore on the first day of the most recent G8 convention. It would be true, existing and verifiable, but nevertheless unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Reading WP:WEB as suggested is indeed a good place to start. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advert spam, and nn. Strengthened due to link-spamming wikiwide, highlighting spamming intentions. Ian13 21:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence this site has a significant amount of visitors. Counted 5 links to the same domain before removing them, which may be reason to call this link spam. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will I delete it for you? Save you the bother? I'll hunt through wiki and find other articles that are of no interest or 'notable' and put them up for eviction as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merrymedia (talk • contribs) 00:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, you'd be saving us a lot of time finding them ourselves. --Kiand 02:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly Kiand, you are looking for problems rather than letting them find you.

Delete; doesn't seem to be a particularly notable site. (And if they're nonprofit, shouldn't they use a .org.uk address instead of .co.uk?) *Dan T.* 06:00, 5 December 2005 (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.