Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shvoong

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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shvoong

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

No independent sources cited to demonstrate that this website meets the notability standards of WP:WEB. Author removed prod tag, which specifically cited lack of sources, without adding any. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only significant coverage is in non-reliable sources. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I don't think the reviews listed constitute notability. Pseudomonas_(talk) 21:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, those reviews are from user-generated sites and are thus not RSes. I've removed them from the article. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No primary sources. Not notable. Clubmarx (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible promotion of a website here. And Wikipedia is not a place to create articles on websites unless they are proven by reliable third party references to be notable. And while there are indeed inline citations provided in the article for references (as well as an external link to the website) it does not have enough of the reliable third party references required in order to pass Wikipedia's standards for the article inclusion of a website.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 02:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Strightforward {{db-web}} case. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam, I'm 99% sure that the one source, Mr Sexton, is primary, but can't find 'proof' to say speedy; see for e.g. http://www.ehow (This link was editfiltered out, hence splitting) filteredcom/how_4965518_write-abstracts-home-earn-money.html, which is why I said 'spam'. Chzz ► 11:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until notability and proof of notability is established. Kotiwalo (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete because this article is quite the same kind of article and has almost the same type and reliability of sources and references as the article of HubPages and Squidoo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.195.12.106 (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Per SPI referenced below, 201.195.12.106 is a confirmed open proxy. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete this article about Shvoong because it has sources, references and more information from the Internet. Those links which are in the references of the article regarding articles written by Timothy Sexton are completely good sources. In fact, those are realiable sources. It could be necessary to say that Mr. Sexton is one of the most important writers on the Internet. Just look at this and you will see he is really important. Shvoong.com is a Great Resource for Readers, Students and Freelance Writers. Look the box at the right on that article.Fabrifago — Fabrifago (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- You most likely have the wrong link there. Kotiwalo (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete The article has primary sources. It is notable. Shvoong is available on 34 languages. It has a traffic rank on Alexa.com of 2500 approximately. Elwikiseñor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC). — Elwikiseñor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Struck vote of confirmed sockpuppet --Cybercobra (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, primary sources mean that it has a homesite. That doesn't mean notability. Kotiwalo (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Elwikisenor and 201.195.12.106 are possible sockpuppets of Fabrifago. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fabrifago. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:45, 25 August 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.