Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FleshEatingZipper

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. postdlf (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FleshEatingZipper

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources are primary. Could find no secondary sourcing whatsoever. Prod declined by IP for no reason. Everything points to a WP:WEB failure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've done some editing to the page, removing a lot of primary sources and a quote-farm that had formed in the page. A search quickly shows that while this is one of the more popular sites out there and might be usable as a RS for other articles, I don't see anything to show that this site is notable enough to merit an article of its own. No matter how nicely written or reliable the site's own posts are, primary sources can't show notability. I think it might just be WP:TOOSOON for this website to have an entry. It's only been up for a year and while it apparently got some initial hits for covering an author rant, being popular doesn't mean that you get an entry. It just means that it's possible for the site to gain coverage to show notability, in other words, coverage that focuses on the site rather than just mentioning it. I just don't see that type of coverage at this point in time, hence the "too soon" bit.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - some guys got laid off and started a website? I can't see any WP:CORPDEPTH there. Stalwart111 11:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — After failing to identify any reliable sources whatsoever regarding FleshEatingZipper, I'd agree that the article fails WEB and that it's premature for the VG project to consider incorporating this as a reliable source. Mephistophelian (contact) 07:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Sparse reliable coverage, and nothing I'd be comfortable using to establish WP:WEB notability. Mkdw ^talk 09:30, 5 January 2013 (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.