Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Experts-Exchange (2nd nomination)


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Experts-Exchange
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Most of the sourcing provided is from vanity websites. No real coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. Störm  (talk)  16:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Most of the arguments here do not appear to be addressing the source issue (Wiki5537821 comes closest) - is there any good source on this website?
 * Keep The website was quite popular, and may be of intereset in future Wiki5537821 (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep; it already survived one nomination, so it can just be rolled back to a satisfactory state. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep kids these days have no respect for the famous double entendres of old. Artw (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are, one of which was even around at the time of the first AFD discussion:
 * Reading these, it seems that it is possible to write a decent article, far better than what Wikipedia has now. There are even (poorer quality) sources that I haven't cited that document additional things like the site's use of Google First Click Free earlier this decade (which I wouldn't trust to be objective on much else, but which I trust to report this fact reliably).  Uncle G (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Reading these, it seems that it is possible to write a decent article, far better than what Wikipedia has now. There are even (poorer quality) sources that I haven't cited that document additional things like the site's use of Google First Click Free earlier this decade (which I wouldn't trust to be objective on much else, but which I trust to report this fact reliably).  Uncle G (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Reading these, it seems that it is possible to write a decent article, far better than what Wikipedia has now. There are even (poorer quality) sources that I haven't cited that document additional things like the site's use of Google First Click Free earlier this decade (which I wouldn't trust to be objective on much else, but which I trust to report this fact reliably).  Uncle G (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Reading these, it seems that it is possible to write a decent article, far better than what Wikipedia has now. There are even (poorer quality) sources that I haven't cited that document additional things like the site's use of Google First Click Free earlier this decade (which I wouldn't trust to be objective on much else, but which I trust to report this fact reliably).  Uncle G (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Reading these, it seems that it is possible to write a decent article, far better than what Wikipedia has now. There are even (poorer quality) sources that I haven't cited that document additional things like the site's use of Google First Click Free earlier this decade (which I wouldn't trust to be objective on much else, but which I trust to report this fact reliably).  Uncle G (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Reading these, it seems that it is possible to write a decent article, far better than what Wikipedia has now. There are even (poorer quality) sources that I haven't cited that document additional things like the site's use of Google First Click Free earlier this decade (which I wouldn't trust to be objective on much else, but which I trust to report this fact reliably).  Uncle G (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Reading these, it seems that it is possible to write a decent article, far better than what Wikipedia has now. There are even (poorer quality) sources that I haven't cited that document additional things like the site's use of Google First Click Free earlier this decade (which I wouldn't trust to be objective on much else, but which I trust to report this fact reliably).  Uncle G (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2019 (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.