Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thewittyshit.com (2nd nomination)

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. While some links to mentions exist, the quality hasn't convinced the community that they are significant. Being temporary isn't the issue, but quality and depth concerns are. Dennis - 2¢ 16:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thewittyshit.com[edit]

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

The first nomination was resulted "no consensus". Article about a website that hasn't received much significant third party coverage. There is a list of sources in the article but it is not enough. They are all one time coverage. And the article is actually a permanent stub. That means there is little verifiable information to be found on the subject and there is little important to say about the subject which means the article is about a subject that was briefly notable, but no longer receives any coverage i.e. single event. And it is likely that it will not receive any future coverage.

Permastubs are unsatisfying articles –they leave little potential for future editing, and by their nature are not very informative. There is no possibility for any expansion, nor any topic that they could be merged into, so I can't find any way. Jim Carter (from public cyber)' 05:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources in the article are normal start-up coverage; I am not seeing anything subsequently. Nor does an Alexa rank beyond 3.5M indicate something being missed. Fails WP:NWEB, WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, interesting source coverage from multiple references, also some mentioned by Northamerica1000 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thewittyshit.com. — Cirt (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: In what basis? Have you got some new sources? Or are you talking about those existing one time coverage? Don't use the term "interesting" here. People might confuse this as WP:ILIKEIT !vote. Cheers, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 04:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the prior AFD, Northamerica1000 said: "Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources: India Today, DNA News. There's also coverage in Yahoo Campus (India) and mentions in Mid-Day." I agree with that comment. — Cirt (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: So you don't agree that the sources mentioned by Northamerica1000 are one time coverage, which is certainly not enough to pass our notability threshold. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 05:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These sources mentioned by Northamerica1000 in the 2012 AfD are the ones that I described above as "normal start-up coverage". Aside of course from being unable to recheck the Yahoo one, which has expired, they all seem to me to be "here's an interesting new start up by some guys from IIT"; happy to change my view if there is really strong evidence that their endeavor is of encyclopaedic relevance? AllyD (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, notability is not temporary. — Cirt (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree on that principle, but are these pieces of start-up floss actually evidence of notability? Any and every start-up puts itself out to get that level of basic PR coverage; if they don't they're dead in the water before they even start. It is simply passing coverage, not in depth coverage demonstrating notability. But, as I said, I'm open to convincing if any subsequent actual coverage of this venture can be identified. AllyD (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No truly in depth independent coverage in refs and googling in their home market finds nothing independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:54, 19 October 2014 (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.