Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gizmag

: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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

=[[Gizmag]]=

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

:({{Find sources|Gizmag}})

Non-notable blog/magazine. Claims to be a top 100 blog on Technorati, which is a really low stat, but the references for that just leads to some unimpressive looking tracking number from Technorati. Tries to back up it's claim of 2.5 million visitors by linking to their Google advertising account. Can not find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, for example the SAY Media citation sounds impressive until you realize say media is a publisher and advertiser. Ridernyc (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I have provided independent third-party sources that prove (not claim) Gizmag is a notable site. Quantcast and Technorati are both notable enough to have Wikipedia pages. --Skagnet (talk) 06:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - There needs to be significant coverage about Gizmag. I didn't find any but if some are brought forth, I'll evaluate them. -- Whpq (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete From Wikipedia:Notability (web): "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance..." and ""Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance,"". There are no sources saying this website has any notable "achievements, impact or historical significance". The claim "we have a lot of visitors", even if substantiated, isn't enough to make it notable.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 06:47, 4 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.