Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science-advisor.net
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. Cirt (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Science-advisor.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability on two Google searches and no results on Google News and Google books. Schuym1 (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Don't see the point of keeping this. It's not special. TopGearFreak Talk 16:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article is an unreferenced stub; there does not appear to be significant coverage of the site (or the company that owns it) in reliable secondary sources. —Snigbrook 17:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Schuym1 (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, besides the lacking userbase of 500, the claim it's the largest database of its kind is not surprising, from the FAQ: "Your can search and download all articles of arXiv.org (physics, mathematics, computer science) and PubMedCentral (biology, medicine)." In other words, they've aggregated the work of others... - Mgm|(talk) 20:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this seems to strongly fail WP:WEB. While indexing sites can certainly be notable (see Web of Science), this one isn't. Bfigura (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It's an index site, written a little like an ad, and unreferenced. DavidWS (contribs) 22:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete (G11) — reeks of spam. MuZemike (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Website does not assert notability, needs 3rd party trusted press coverage about the association and notable reasons for inclusion. Google does not find usable references. - DustyRain (talk) 09:29, 24 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.