Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chainofthoughts.com

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 delete. --Core desat 07:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chainofthoughts.com

No notability established. Nothing found on a Google News Archive search. Of the references cited, BBC link doesnt mention the site at all (except the screenshot) and the other 2 are blogs Corpx 17:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. If US presidential candidates are starting to use the site for advertising, and if a major news publisher does a story on this, then it's a slam-dunk keep. In the article's current state, however, the website's notability seems peripheral. One of the two blog stories is a Fast Company writer on a FC website, so I give that source a little more credibility. Still, the article doesn't currently back up anything other than its role in the Virginia Tech tragedy mourning. —C.Fred (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads as an advertBalloonman 18:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, members of the site are "advertising" for their favored candidates, and the major news publisher did a story about something else where they showed a screenshot of this as an example. That's basically trivial. Fails WP:WEB. --Dhartung | Talk 22:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete since perhaps there will be additional sources found during the course of the afd. One good source would make it, as C Fred says. DGG (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I found two more supporting references, one in a discussion regarding the next generation of tag clouds (joelamatia.com) also, supporters of candidate Mike Gravel using the site for promotion (in line with comments by C.Fred). Are more than 5 references needed? Pundit8086 02:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs dont count as reliable sources Corpx 02:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So presumably if the BBC article actually said the name of the website, then this would pass, if I understand the consensus?Pundit8086 02:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not just mention the site. It has to be about the site or talk about it significantly Corpx 02:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'll just get the BBC to re-write the article. Pundit8086 03:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yeah, I'm skeptical about the credibility of either of the blogs, though truthdig.com could be up in the air for me. —C.Fred (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record the truthdig reference is a podcast. The creators of said website had enough notability to actually get an interview with the candidate. Pundit8086 03:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The site is not mentioned anywhere on the transcript though Corpx 03:38, 23 July 2007 (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.