Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concentricus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Concentricus
NN website, alexa has no data on it. -- Bachrach44 01:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's an important influence in the world of online literature. Few places allow such a professional atmosphere.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Crash zero (talk • contribs)
- Prove its important influence, and we can keep the article. Also, please sign your edits :) Jdcooper 02:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Fang Aili 02:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jdcooper 02:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- No Delete per nom. chillinvillain "" Actually, alexa has plenty of info on it, unless you are talking about traffic stats...which I'm unsure what that has to do with anything about this
- You may want to read WP:WEB. --Bachrach44 02:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- That seems a bit off to what the website actually is. Wikipedia is dynamic right? What are the criteria is there for a webzine. Online publishing is not a small field, and while it is not the purpose here to argue the merits of online publishing, it seems as though the guidelines do not fit the page (for the catagory i mean). So I guess my question is: Is there actual guidelines for webzines or is it all grouped under the link you gave me? I'm just a bit unsure of how we are supposed to "prove it's worth" as it were for wiki, given other webzines grouped here. --chillinvillain
- You may want to read WP:WEB. --Bachrach44 02:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable webzine. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:14Z
- Delete - article provides no evidence of the webzine's influence - this evidence might include outside sources that discuss it, or events outside of this zine that it has influenced. CDC (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- --06:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)chillinvillain BBC had actaully offered to base a series off of a users piece (Universe, An Unauthorized Bibliography), however there is no proof of that offer due to it happening over a year ago and the user has sense moved on. I'm more than willing to back the zine up, but there are currently no real guidelines for that. What qualifies as an "outside source" linking to concentricus, or what makes it "notable". Currently, I don't see a way to submit the websites influence.
- Take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources for the kind of thing I'm talking about - without an outside source on the subject, it's considered unverifiable for Wikipedia's purposes. CDC (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- --06:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)chillinvillain BBC had actaully offered to base a series off of a users piece (Universe, An Unauthorized Bibliography), however there is no proof of that offer due to it happening over a year ago and the user has sense moved on. I'm more than willing to back the zine up, but there are currently no real guidelines for that. What qualifies as an "outside source" linking to concentricus, or what makes it "notable". Currently, I don't see a way to submit the websites influence.
- Comment :: as is at the moment, this does not read to me like a peer review, rather like a discrete press release. If Wiki-fied, would consider weak keep; as is, delete for self-promotion -- SockpuppetSamuelson 09:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable, unverifiable, advert, etc. Stifle 02:00, 15 January 2006 (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.
