Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PCMech

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. --Ezeu 15:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PCMech[edit]

DELETE does not meet notability requirements, many opportunities to rectify. reads liks an advert. see Talk:PCMech Bungalowbill 03:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's an advertisement. - Richardcavell 03:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems to meet some notability requirements. I don't think it reads much like an advert, and Alexa rank isn't that bad--around 25,000, with 1,000 pages linking to it. Compare some of the other sites that come up here, and you'll see what I mean. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:WEB. It has been mentioned in articles, but the criterion is that the article is about the site. That, I don't see. Aguerriero (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It doesn't seem like an advertisement. It describes the site's purpose and what's on it, much like the other Technology websites that are listed, such as Ars Technica, doom9, neowin, etc. --Gregg 66.109.42.170 18:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above user's only contributions have been to PCMech and this AfD. --Ezeu 15:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In spite of the Keep votes which claim it doesn't look like an advertisement, (although it shouldn't be noted that none of them actually assert that it isn't an advertisement), it clearly is an advertisement. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As far as I can tell, it has met the notability requirements. But this brings up a point: if PC Mechanic has been noted in Playboy and the Wall Street Journal, how would these mentions be tracked down / linked to since they're in print format, and not in an online format? — Hoppy42 03:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above user's only contribution has been to PCMech and this AfD. --Ezeu 15:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the article must prove notability itself" (paraphrase) it doesn't. linked articles are meer mentions, and the print articles are not proved. pictures would be proof, i would assume the WSJ could be accessed online somehow?. theres no reason to suspect either of the print articles are anything other than mentions without proof. there has been no claim they are more than mentions anyway. there have been many oportunities to give proof. 137.205.25.203 10:12, 26 May 2006 (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.