Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/60second Recap

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

60second Recap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable website, article created by SPA who has done nothing but promote this website, speedy removed WuhWuzDat 16:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, has enough mainstream sources to establish notability. Yworo (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article meets the notability criteria of WP:WEB with non-trivial coverage demonstrated by multiple third-party reliable sources; although the article should be expanded and the links to the coverage should be incorporated into the article as in-line citations. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Barek's point about the citations seals it for me (and we can do without all the words in quotes the article has too). I really don't see any proof for the SPA claim, but if it is so, consider taking the matter to WP:COIN. Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Barek.  -- Lear's Fool 01:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete G7, per authors repeated requests [1][2]. WuhWuzDat 03:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The G7 deletion was declined by Favonian at my request, for the reasons I explained on his talkpage.  -- Lear's Fool 03:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — Boston Globe, Wash Post, USA Today coverage more than sufficient to establish notability. — Brianhe (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Author created it, tried to own it, tried to get it deleted and made legal threats when he realized he couldn't own it, and was indef'd until or if he retracts. If it's notable as others here say, it can stay. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sourcing seems to indicate notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, What is WuhWuzdat even talking about? Skippy 16:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)— Skipperdude (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep, the references available demonstrate notability through non-trivial media coverage, especially the CBS news article. I agree that there is almost certainly a conflict of interest on the author's part, but this can be overcome with a quick re-write. There no doubt needs to be more references asserting notability added for this article to avoid future AfD/PRODs. --§Pumpmeup 02:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cuz there's no "Abelman" at Heeb Magazine (cf. footnotes) but y'all are too lazy to bother with actual fact-checking. Nah. Better to just call people names instead. And, while you're at it, why not delete the whole website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.139.237 (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC) — 166.137.139.237 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • What are you talking about? Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment <sarcasm on> I believe the IP's comment are an excerpt from his new book, "My Life as a Sock"<sarcasm off>. WuhWuzDat 07:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Administrator note Because of repeated blanking by IP socks I have semi-protected this AfD. Favonian (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also because of socking, I added the {{notavote}} tag. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Comments by blocked socks struck out. WuhWuzDat 17:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sufficiently familiar with the nuances of Wikipedia's notability policy to feel comfortable venturing an opinion about this subject's suitability for encyclopedic treatment. But I would like to address the OP's contention that 60-second Recap is a "non-notable website." As a secondary school teacher, I believe I can state, with high confidence, that 60-second Recap is having a real impact in the classroom. The way it presses the vernacular of contemporary internet video into the service of literary pedagogy is both startling, useful, and, possibly, transformative. I do think the article, as it now stands, doesn't do the subject (or Wikipedia) justice. I'll see if I can find some time later this evening to add it. Perhaps this will assuage the OP's concerns. Thanks. Contextmatters (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can find verifiable sources that say similar to what you're asserting, that would be a step in the right direction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.