Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AALBC.com

: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 keep (non-admin closure) Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

=[[AALBC.com]]=

:{{la|AALBC.com}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AALBC.com Stats])

:({{Find sources|AALBC.com}})

Alexa Rank 303,323 therefore I highly doubt this is a notable website, it also looks like this article was created for promotional purposes given the user that created this article has been banned. JayJayTalk to me 23:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep Please read WP:Notability. Notability isn't based on Alexa ranks. The article cites two New York Times articles and a Publishers Weekly article about the website. That{{'}}s the sort of stuff notability is based on. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

:*Two articles from the NY Times and two from Publishers Weekly might be might give it a Weak keep but definitely not a Strong keep. JayJayTalk to me 17:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep Meets WP: WEBCONTENT. It also meets WP: GNG, and has very reliable sources, including the NY Times. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Speedy weak keep though it may be better to merge the content into a list of online book clubs or something, its not going to have extensive content, Sadads (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - While the coverage currently in the article is not very extensive, it does pass WP:GNG. The article could certainly use some addition of reliable sources and expansion, which I have started to do. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

: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.