Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oneworld.net (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, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oneworld.net

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB. No improvement, still Only one of the sources is independent of the subject and seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. This is nothing more than Self-promotion, which wikipedia is WP:NOT Hu12 (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ketsuekigata (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed Per Nom. Rgoodermote 00:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as it stands, it fails WP:WEB. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, my first reaction was to delete as well, but upon closer inspection there's things like [1] and [2], which features indepth coverage of a part of this site. I think it's good enough. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - but those sources relate to OneWorldTV, which already has an article, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with UnitedStatesian on that, Lankiveil. OneWorldTV is not Oneworld.net--Hu12 (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough based upon the sources, plus the previous AFD was just last November and passed with a pretty unanimous keep decision there, too. 23skidoo (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Theres one source which is self published (Activelink gets paid to promote), and november's was almost a half year ago?--Hu12 (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB and subsequently, WP:N Gary King (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Website of either no or at best trivial notability. Promo. Fails WP:WEB. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:23, 25 April 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.