Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Escunited


 * 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Escunited

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable website dedicated to Eurovision. The sources are either unreliable (IMDb, the website itself) or don't provide significant coverage of the website itself. Pichpich (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, Websites,  and Europe. Skynxnex (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Please explain further how it's "non-notable" and the sources that are referred at are unreliable. Real Heydavid17 (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Found this through the recommendation for edits. It does appear that there's some references back to the site's content available in scholarly articles. I found them through the link above. But I'm unsure if these would assist.

Tthere does appear to be some level of significance compared to a small blog/something similar that has no in-text references.

Also re: the conflict of interest, was not aware the this could Crete an issue. I will therefore discontinue edits on this article. Apologies for confusion. I appear to have been logged in under my phone account to make this comment. Cjt199677 (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. Fails WP:WEB and WP:SIGCOV. I could find no independent significant coverage of this website; although I did see multiple academic publications from reliable publishers like Oxford University Press using this website to source content in their books. That said, we can't build an article about the website with only primary sources per WP:No original research.4meter4 (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2022 (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.