Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doodle.com


 * 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   keep. Consensus is that sources exist that are not currently in the article which establish notability. (non-admin closure) Monty  845  00:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Doodle.com

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not appear to meet inclusion criteria. Free web program/website... Even if RS could be found, there would not be enough content to write a worthwhile article. Declined speedy; apparently it is popular in Germany. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  10:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just look?  Marcus   Qwertyus   16:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, did you? A dead link and a link to the URL. The third devotes two short sentences to the website on a full-page article. It's not even the full quote, the second half of the quote is about another website. There is nothing that comes close to "significant coverage". ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  16:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dead links count toward notability. Marcus   Qwertyus   23:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:ADVERT. CycloneGU (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What a superb lack of assuming good faith. Marcus   Qwertyus   23:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - 7 books right here.. Please check before rampaging around destroying perfectly notable articles. Marcus   Qwertyus   23:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Willing to keep an open mind here (use my talk page) but "website of the week" isn't really encyclopedic material.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  22:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Marcus. Clearly notable and verifiable. Steven Walling  00:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep (the same reasons) --Mmh (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are also a lot of reviews in German (e.g., , etc.) and other languages. --Mmh (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Google books search turns up a decent amount of discussion of it in addition to the links provided by the previous !voters. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2011 (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.