Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UnSpoken Secrets

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 as failing WP:RS, and therefore WP:V and WP:N. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UnSpoken Secrets

Conested speedy, which was placed on "Unspoken secrets" (note capitalization differences; that article, a duplicate of this one, was changed to a redirect later. This article seeks largely to promote the website, which does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:WEB. Only independent sources are a YouTube interview and an article in a college newspaper, not substantial enough to prove notability. Google search for this phrase turns up only a handful of relevant hits, most directed to the site itself or this WP article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Just noticed that the original author is User:MrUnSpoken. User name indicates there might be COI and/or self-promotion issues here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent sources per WP:WEB. "Gained attention from" a large newspaper without giving references sounds like they called the paper themselves, but never got the call returned. DarkAudit (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Comfirmable content. Needs NPOV. --Funper (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Only one is a remotely reliable source. The rest are self-provided. A single source is not sufficient. DarkAudit (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --VS ^talk 07:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough reliable sources to establish notability. Jfire (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is poorly written, and needs cleanup of its cites, but it has become notable per WP:WEB, getting media attention. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article may claim some publicity, almost all local, but doesn't provide much evidence. No references, and only one of the external links is to media coverage, and it does not look like a reliable source. Jfire (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Getting media attention" without sources to back it up means nothing. There is no proof that this has actually happened, just links to other articles about the papers, TV stations, and schools. Cite references or it didn't happen. DarkAudit (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube link has been fixed, and it turns out that it is an edited version of the story provided by the web site's owners. YouTube is already not a very reliable source, and even with video originally coming from the TV station, the editing has made the video completely unreliable as a source. DarkAudit (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other dead link has been fixed. Since it is a scan of a newspaper page, and not provided by the paper itself but the site in question, it is not coming from a reliable or independent source. So we are left with one source that is even remotely reliable and independent, and claims of other "media attention" that have no basis in fact. Back up the claims or be seen as spam in the eyes of editors. DarkAudit (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the "media attention" out of Orlando is because the site is based in Orlando. DarkAudit (talk) 16:55, 11 February 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.