Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Twisted Outlook


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 04:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A Twisted Outlook

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No evidence that it meets WP:WEB criteria; self-reported stats are relatively modest ("up and coming"); doesn't crack Alexa top 100,000; only one minor media mention. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless more reliable sources are added to assert notability. Heimstern Läufer 01:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless non-trivial sources are produced to establish notability (although the relatively low traffic levels makes that seem unlikely). Probable conflict of interest as the article is written very much like an advert. Trebor 01:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Save, especially if a neutral resource is added.ZimmerBarnes 02:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. I hope it looks less like an advert now, and I apologise for how it looked in the first place. I won't add any more links.

Hello again, thanks again for keeping this up while changes are made. ZimmerBarnes, I was just wondering what you meant by a "neutral resource"? Thanks for the save vote.

I must go to sleep now (3.30am), I'll get right on this in the morning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tfmmushroom (talk • contribs).
 * Comment Tfmmushroom, read WP:WEB (notability guidelines for web sites) and WP:RS (for what constitutes a reliable source).  Also, if this Twisted Outlook web site happens to be yours, please read WP:COI before anything else. SubSeven 03:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Forget WP:WEB - what about WP:V? Not a single thing on the page is verifiable. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable sources used to assert notability. feydey 12:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Save - Popular site. Webaliser is a valid source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.21.132 (talk • contribs).
 * Comment "Webaliser" meaning self-reported site stats? Those stats still do nothing towards the subject meeting WP:WEB requirements. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Webaliser being a top application for displaying a website's statistics. How else can someone convey a site's stats other than by typing it? A screenshot of the stats page?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.21.132 (talk • contribs)
 * I know what Webaliser is. The point is that self-reported web stats do nothing to satisfy WP:WEB criteria. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete website promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 10:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So as I said, what can be done about that? Should the user display the stats? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.21.132 (talk • contribs).
 * Delete non notable site failing WP:WEB and WP:V. Nuttah68 11:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Save - This is a hugely popular site and the fact that they have interviewed the people that they have - notable people, people worthy of wikipedia pages - means that they are gaining notability themselves. And a media mention is a media mention. "Minor" (as someone said) or not, it was on a "major" network. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.105.44.149 (talk • contribs)
 * Please read WP:WEB and WP:Notability. Note that the former states The content itself has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.