Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oolone
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. waggers (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oolone[edit]
- Oolone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Search engine which has been launched about two months ago. Article fails to establish notability; most of the references are either to the website itself, to various blogs, or completely irrelevant. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't find reference to 'age of site' being a factor in eligibility for an article. Article establishes notability with reference to reputable, independent source which covers the topic directly and in detail (as per requirements) Jonquilljones (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What reputable, independent sources? All I see are the site itself and personal blogs. AND ANOTHER WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. What the hell kind of sense does that make? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails to assert notability, sources don't cut it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the second source from thenextweb Jonquilljones (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That one is fine, but there just isn't much of anything else yet. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Debate moved to talk page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That one is fine, but there just isn't much of anything else yet. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the second source from thenextweb Jonquilljones (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lacks multiple significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2012 (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.