Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snooth

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 was keep. Cool Hand Luke 22:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snooth

Lack of Notability. WP:WEB. Misinterpreted that google search. Either way, a single source isn't enough to establish notability. Multiple incidents of significant coverage from reliable sources is required to establish it.Crossmr (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep It has more than one source. I think notability is established. Rocket000 (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Two of those sources are blogs which don't qualify as either reliable or for establishing notability. Just because its listed as a source doesn't mean it actually is.--Crossmr (talk) 06:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I did a google news search (not a regular google search, but a NEWS one) and extensive, reliable sources abound. Read a few, as I have done. Subject is plainly notable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • About the only source out of all those that is even worth looking at is [1]. The rest are either blogs or extremely trivial mentions. Every time someone gives a quote, or someone drops a name doesn't qualify it as significant coverage under WP:WEB. And this source is just a reprint of this [2]. Which doesn't seem to have any editorial oversight, which diminishes its value, however he's an awarded journalist which brings the value back up again. I'm neutral on this source, but I have seen a lot of editors take issue with this kind of source in the past.--Crossmr (talk) 06:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Really, because I found these: [3] and [4] I would consider Business Week and WRAL.com to be as reliable as any other publication and TV station, respectively... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Unique, but the sources are fairly weak... I'd say keep if more reliable ones are found. Master of Puppets Care to share? 05:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment After asking here and getting some clarification Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Techblogs a blog is a blog is a blog. Venture beat is in the same category as those techblogs. Hence the only notable coverage we're left with is one article from Decanter magazine, which doesn't satisfy WP:WEB.--Crossmr (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As the first person to put a speedy deletion tag on this article, I think the article has come a long way. A quick trip to the external link in the article shows references in the NY Post and Daily News. I'll add them to the article. Toddst1 (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    Neither one of those are significant coverage per WP:WEB. They're trivial mentions and don't do anything to establish notability.--Crossmr (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Citation 2 is from the sixth most-widely circulated daily newspaper in the United States and recommends using the site, directly applies to establishing notability addressing criteria 1 of WP:WEB. Citation 3 invokes the CEO as an authority on the subject, citing his position as his credentials, in another top 10 US newspaper. Toddst1 (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2007 (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.