Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiAfterDark

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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiAfterDark[edit]

Non-notable website. Nakon 03:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, I'd like to point out that the nominator tried to speedy delete a sourced article that has stood for months. It seems they are jumping the gun a little bit asserting that a wiki that is the only one of its kind and is mentioned by name in The Boston Globe is not notable. VanTucky 04:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nonnotable website written entirely as promotional material. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional? Considering that I'm not connected to the website, that's a blatant assumption of bad faith. You also seem to be forgetting that the article has sources. VanTucky 04:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the only neutral source is a one-sentence drive by reference. No notability provided. Corvus cornix_talk 04:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only third-party source is a trivial mention. Fails WP:WEB. --L. Pistachio (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Corvus and Lord Pistachio. Although I should mention that a one sentence mention is approximately the attention what Wikitruth received in its independent source. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, appears to fail WP:WEB. No genuine notability provided.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Mentioned by name in The Boston Globe, only one of its kind. Over 40,000 google hits. --helohe (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits are not a valid reason to retain an article. The Boston Globe article is only superficial, as mentioned above. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The search-engine test may, however, be useful as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helohe (talk • contribs) 23:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I get 266 hits. Corvus cornix_talk 03:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I searched like this, did you turn off the family filter? --helohe (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. You're searching for all sites that have the words Wiki, After and Dark in them, not a valid search for WikiAfterDark. Nor even for "Wiki After Dark" (with quotes around the search term). Corvus cornix_talk 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but if I'm searching it your way I get 9200 hits. --helohe (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you go to the last page of the search? Only 305 unique hits. -[1] - most of those hits are dups on the same page. Corvus cornix_talk 00:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No I didn't do that, thank you for the info. --helohe (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one third-party source? Rsazevedo ^msg 23:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No secondarily published information which could be used as verifiable information for an article. Wickethewok (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable website (an eight-word mention in a newspaper article rattling off a list of wikis is not really evidence of notability). --Stormie (talk) 04:50, 30 January 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.