Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jinx.com (2nd nomination)

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. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jinx.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non Notable, no sources - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 03:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Alexius08 (talk) 04:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've declined the speedy deletion as the article is not blatant spam. The references found in the previous AfD establish this website's notability. I've also found a couple more: San Diego Business Journal, Market Wire, and Philadelphia citypaper.net. Cunard (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the above sources are significant enough to establish notability. A google news search is not in itself a proof of notability, it fact only one of the result is relevent (a press release and not independent), which suggests a lack of notability. The third makes no mention whatsoever of the webiste jinx.com, it is about an completely unrelated store and site (Jinxed Clothing not Jinx) Article lacks any sources. i'm not sure about advertising but appears to a small web store of no note. --neon white talk 12:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB. I agree it isn't blatant spam, but it's definitely not notable, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#WEBHOST and WP:WEB — Also agree with being rather spamless, but that's the least of its worries. It reads like a website page, and it doesn't indicate any notability whatsoever. MuZemike (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:N concerns and WP:RS. MvjsTalking 06:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 10:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since no one has seen fit to add what little sourcing exists to this article in the process of this AfD, it looks unlikely to attract enough attention to be worth retaining. Jclemens (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2008 (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.