Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top Five

: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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

=[[Top Five]]=

:{{la|Top Five}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Top Five}})

Not a notable website. Meager coverage at best. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete -- There is hardly any notability to the website. There is a huge lack of third-party sources and the two clean-up tags have been there for a number of years. No point keeping this here. Joker264 (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per above arguments. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

12px Delete - Per reasons given. Η936631 (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - length of time on cleanup tags is not a reason to delete a page. As the page content shows, there has been references to the site in mainstream media (NYTimes, ABC News, Jeopardy), any one of which qualifies as a valid external 3rd party source for meeting WP's notability guidelines. SpikeJones (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:WEB. Supposedly existed for a long time but is now defunct and never appears to have been especially notable while it existed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

:Confused by what you mean by "defunct"? (a) linked site appears to be still up, running, and updated. (b) And since when is WP only concerned about "current" items? Notability has been established per WP guidelines via coverage and references by recognized 3rd party sources. If the article needs to be cleaned up or added to, that's not a reason to call for deletion. SpikeJones (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2011 (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.