Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostate Troubles (website)

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. Kirill Lokshin 03:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prostate Troubles (website)

New (launched 27 Oct 2005) website initially linked externally from prostate cancer and now written up as an article because an editor disagreed with my removal of that link (and hence WP:POINT). We do not need pages on every website, hence delete. JFW | T@lk 08:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• delete web spam. — brighterorange (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Dalbury 17:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (as creator of the article, not the website). This was created as a consequence of an editorial dispute, but that does not justify my being accused of practicing WP:POINT. If it is web spam, then I ask that the dozens or hundreds of similar (and less content-containing) articles be nominated here in short order. Please do not consider the implied intent but consider the content. If it still is considered to be deletable content, then I'm for accepting that consensus and moving on. Regards, Courtland 17:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC) (P.S. I just wrote a couple of words on a complete different topic that involved a reference to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and I thought it was useful to bring that not to my defense or that of the article up for deletion, but to those accused of "web spammery" ... spam'dness is often an eye-of-the-beholder matter. Courtland 18:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC))

• WP:POINT or not, I voted to delete because wikipedia is not a web directory. If you know of hundreds of other articles about three-day-old websites, please nominate them to AfD, and I assure you they will be deleted without controversy. — brighterorange (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Time since creation is not a criterion for deletion, though I don't disagree that if I am going to invoke the "there are many like this" argument, then I should back it up with some action or (at least) facts. Thanks for the additional input. Courtland 18:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable Tedernst 20:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice or malice. Almost nothing three days old without the words "Crown Prince" in front is encyclopedic. - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Heh. JFW | T@lk 18:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • That covers a lot of ground ... like to put that up as a proposal somewhere? Courtland 18:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC) ps I meant that as tongue in cheek, not as a snide aside Courtland 18:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Edwardian 18:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete InvictaHOG 20:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While I lean towards being an inclusionist, I'm not sure if an entry about an undistinguished website is worthy of inclusion. Andrew73 21:41, 3 November 2005 (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.