Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entertainmentwise.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. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 03:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Entertainmentwise.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No proof of notability in independent sources. Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 11:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - The article makes no real claim to notability, which means its eligible to be tagged for Speedy Deletion under criteria A7. The only sources even being used in this article are just links to other Wikipedia articles. This is already not valid sourcing, but from what I can tell, most of the linked articles have nothing to do with this article at all. I've tagged the article as a Speedy in the hopes we can skip the full AFD process. Rorshacma (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the speedy tag. It is an example of tabloid journalism, however, their content is cited and reprinted by multiple notable media, see [1]. This should be properly discussed. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to point out that the vast majority of the articles that come up with that search are not really places where other places are citing that site, exactly. They're merely just place that link you to the entertainmentwise website. Those really aren't usable as valid sources. This article has already been Speedy Deleted at least 5 times previous to this, and has had no real change or improvement since any of those deletes, so I figured that deleting it once again would not be out of the question. Rorshacma (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the speedy tag. It is an example of tabloid journalism, however, their content is cited and reprinted by multiple notable media, see [1]. This should be properly discussed. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I couldn't find any coverage ABOUT this website as required for WP:NWEB. The bar for websites is high: "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance". Even the lower bar of "do other media cite and reprint material this site?" does not seem to be met. If the article has really been deleted that many times previously, suggest salting as well. --MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable web site. Fails WP:WEB. The link to The Sun (a major tabloid, and the closest thing to a reference) is to an article on another subject entirely. The article consists of some brief promotional text and an excessively large logo, so there's no content that needs saving. --John Nagle (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2012 (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.