Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worth1000

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Worth1000

Worth1000 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Advertisement, Spam and fails WP:NOT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lord David (talk • contribs).

  • not spam or an advertisement and doesn't "fail WP:NOT" just because someone declares it does. 13 mention mentions listed at [1] and 43 more claimed here, would seem to have a reasonable case for meeting WP:WEB, just needs improvement. (this is a keep for people who only see bolded words) --W.marsh 21:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

keep I think this nomination is bad faith, I mean:

Worth1000 is one of the most popular sites of its kind and has served more than 5.5 million distinct visitors in September 2004. They have also been featured in many different publications, TV shows, and radio including PC Magazine, Popular Science, Good Morning America, BBC, CNN, New York Times, Weekly World News, Detroit Free Press, TechTV, USA Today, G4, Inside Edition and many others.[1]

of course that's notable, I think someone just lost a contest and is having a hissy fit they didn't win! Owlofcreamcheese 21:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment The authority for that is the website itself. The sentence should be removed as unsourced. Since all of the other references are eiher produced by the site itself or liked to it, this is a Delete as COI. This does not mean a proper article could not be written; it does mean there is no sourced content worth preserving, DGG 01:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • From WP:COI: "conflict of interest is not in itself a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is."--W.marsh 01:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, assuming the list of media references in the second paragraph is correct. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep well-referenced article on popular site. FCYTravis 00:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, article could use some touch-up, and references should not be to a "list" of references, but huh? 100+ Google News Archive results is a pretty good start. --Dhartung | Talk 01:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Site mentioned in NY Times and ZDNet. Notable. --Pixelface 08:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets WP:WEB notability. There's an article about it in UK newspaper Metro and a mention of the same site in The Sun. The site's Photoshop competition is world-famous. --Canley 09:16, 28 March 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.