Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stumpedia

: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. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

=[[Stumpedia]]=

:{{la|Stumpedia}} ([{{fullurl:Stumpedia|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stumpedia}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Notability not met. COI issues and written like an advert. 50,000th on Alexa. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Article has been modified and rewritten by several different contriubutors. Article does not sound like an advert. but only states facts. Site is currently ranked on Alexa top 50 sites, this is also fact. The alexa.com reference is not meant to advertise, create nobility, or promote the site in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.220.109.113 (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 15:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

:Sorry, I'll correct myself. Ranked 34,879th on Alexa. Still not notable, still written by one of the sites admins, still sounds like an advert. Wikipedia is not your web host. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete--I don't see any notability for this subject, besides a mention and a half on ABC News and the Christian Science Monitor. Drmies (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as not yet sufficiently notable. No evidence of significant coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. See WP:GNG. — Satori Son 15:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Really this comes down to the question, is this notable or not? There are only 3 known references for this article in reliable sources, 2 for Christian Science Monitor and one for ABC News. All 3 references mention the site in passing only, and therefore this article fails Wikipedia's guidelines. -- Atamachat 18:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • This article has been on Wikipedia for almost one year now. The article is now indexed, referenced, and linked to from other web pages. If the article was not notable, why did it take this long to determine that. Deleting the article now will result in broken links and confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.220.109.113 (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Only seven articles [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&limit=999&target=Stumpedia&namespace=0 link] to this one, and none does so in a meaningful way whatsoever (it's never discussed, only listed as one example among many). I'll remove the links once this one is deleted. — Satori Son 14:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • And this article had a speedy delete request 5 minutes after it was created, then again after one day. It was only kept after the editor hitting it with the CSD discussed the article with its creator. It has been given nine months to improve, and hasn't. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • And what about other external sites and search engines that link to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.220.109.113 (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2009 (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.