Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cotswolds Connect


 * 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. ~  L'Aquatique   [  talk  ] 04:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Cotswolds Connect

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A novel website idea, but not yet notable enough for inclusion on our project. Our notability policy states that, as a rule, a topic should have received "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". At present, there are not very many mentions in news media, and I am concerned that the page may have been made by someone connected with the website in some way. Finally, a stated growth rate of 30% is unsustainable, and suggests that the project does not yet have very many members. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as nomination. This site just isn't notable enough yet, and there isn't much that's verifiable. --Ged UK (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, as it has been, speedily, twice. It may be unique to the Cotswolds, but hardly in any wider sense, so the assertion of notability is wafer thin.  TrulyBlue (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I know it's been speedied twice, but I think the owner keeps recreating it because he thinks it meets WP:N. I'm hoping that coming to this page will show him that we're not being malicious, but that his website simply isn't big enough to warrant inclusion yet. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment It was speedy deleted because it didn't assert importance. It now does assert the importance, so it is no longer a candidate for deletion on those grounds. So the fact that it's already been deleted twice shouldn't push us towards a Delete decision here - the problem it had before is now resolved. I think assertion of importance is different to notability - being unique to the Cotswolds is enough for an assertion of importance I would say, but notability is instead about 3rd party reliable sources. Mdwh (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete It has 3rd party sources, but these seem to me to fall under a brief news coverage, that do not show long term significance yet. NOT says Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article.; Notability says it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. It's unclear whether there's going to be much verifiable content that could be added for an article - I think a mention in Cotswolds would be sufficient. Note that this vote should not be taken as implying that future articles should be speedy deleted - there may be a justification for an article in future if there is increased, long-term coverage in 3rd party sources. Mdwh (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * SpeedyDelete as per WP:N WP:SPAM - DustyRain (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2008 (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.