Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESwiki


 * 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. Arguably A7, but even if you argue that it escapes A7, it's definitely blustery here.  Enigma msg  00:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

ESwiki

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

This is a non-notable website with Alexa ranking of 5.7million. I attempted searching for references on the name ESwiki only shows references to the Spanish Wikipedia. I am attempting searching for the domain name shows zero sources on google news, books, scholar. This should qualify for speedy deletion as A7 web content. Miami33139 (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't propose an article for speedy deletion just because you couldn't get your own way by putting incorrect tags all over the article. I'm sure you would have proposed for a deletion FIRST. -- Jordan &quot;Eck&quot; Samuel (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of notability. --Izno (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; It exists; nothing else matters. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 18:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I exist. Do you think that there should be an article about me? Joe Chill (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 22:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No arguing with that, I suppose. But, Nothing Else Matters? --Izno (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That song was going through my head as I typed that, in fact. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 02:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of notability and the fact that it was created by the owner of the site, creating a huge conflict of interest. --Golbez (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is irrelevant; while a conflict of interest is relevant, that's no reason to delete the article; just alter or remove any inappropriate content so it's no longer problematic. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 18:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is relevant because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Joe Chill (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is irrelevant because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not merely a pocket reference. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 22:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB, lack of reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  00:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:CSD. The article only proves the website exists, not why it is important. To Kurt Weber: While people may disagree about when something is notable, considering absolutely anything notable is counter productive, epsecially when it's about a topic we've already got very clear guidelines about. - Mgm|(talk) 13:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Who's considering "absolutely anything" notable? Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 14:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you've misunderstood Kurt's position. It's not that anything is notable; it's that anything is worthy of conclusion, regardless of notability. --Golbez (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable, I don't see any source for this website, not even in the usual places like the Taringa! website. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What sources? doesn't need any. -- Jordan &quot;Eck&quot; Samuel (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It does. Joe Chill (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well Wikipedia isn't edited by one person, If people find that it needs sources. why not add them in? -- Jordan &quot;Eck&quot; Samuel (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no sources that make it pass WP:WEB. Joe Chill (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete- website with no claim of notability. I could find no reliable sources to make it notable. i see snow in the near future 16x9 (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:CSD. How did it survive so long? I don't know. > RUL3R >trolling >vandalism  01:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * People should read the site and see how important it is instead of denying it because of no rank, or whatever that is. Every site had a low rank at one point in its life, Considering it's the only encyclopedia with a purpose to only host information related to IRC, all in the one place. i think it should be given a chance.-- Jordan &quot;Eck&quot; Samuel (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And on its first day, Yahoo.com would have been denied an article as well. Being unique does not make it notable. --Golbez (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2009 (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.