Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Quote Palace

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 SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 04:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Quote Palace[edit]

Apparently about as non-notable a website as it's possible to get outside of Geocities. This has been speedied-and-recreated by a couple of SPAs three times already. Procedural AfD to either get a consensus that it's notable and can be left alone (I don't think it is), or that it's non-notable and we can get a consensus to delete it so it can be G4'd next time it appears. – iride scent 22:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no reliable sources attesting to any notability of this website that I could locate. (Indeed, there are almost no sources outside the site itself and its entry here, which seems to suggest that it is unusually non-notable.) Accounting4Taste:talk 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete not only is article lacking any verifiable content or evidence of notability, website is also lacking any substantial content. Very unlikely to become notable in foreseeable future even with Wikipedia 'advertising'. Closer to WP:MADEUP than failure to meet WP:WEB -Hunting dog (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above. Lady Galaxy 22:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given the website, I doubt this would ever contain a valid assertion of notability so what are the benefits of having this 'procedural' nomination just so it can be hit with G4 instead of A7 each time? - Icewedge (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I agree with the nom and not with Icewedge. Where an article gets repeatedly created, A7d, created, A7d, created, A7d, it can be a good idea to bring it here to AfD. That course assumes good faith on the part of the creators, and gives them a forum to argue for the existence of the page with other wikipedians: which they might otherwise not be aware of. At the very least it makes the creators aware why we have an issue with their article, and they see the community supporting those reasons. Otherwise they can easily feel that they are being bullied by high-handed admins. That is the perception of many a new user. AndyJones (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Exactly right; especially in a case like this which is being recreated by multiple accounts, it's possible that the uploaders are right and we're wrong. Admins aren't infalliable, let alone speedy taggers; I'd estimate that between 30-50% of A7 speedy requests are made in error and declined. – iride scent 14:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's no coverage in reliable sources about this website -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This website is here for the community. Please explain why it should not be kept, it seems as if it is providing a good source of information on the "little guy", and it should stay on Wikipedia in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrosproto (talk • contribs) 19:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm afraid you are going to have to explain why it should be kept. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we have standards about what we include. In this case the standard is to be found at WP:WEB. Please read that page, then comment on why this website fits our criteria (if it does). Providing a good source of information for the little guy isn't mentioned there. AndyJones (talk) 21:20, 15 August 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.