Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Facethejury


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Facethejury

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD, although reasons were given on the talk page. Although given the website may be a big one, there is no evidence that it would pass WP:WEB, WP:N, and WP:GNG. Google brought up no coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Bryce ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 14:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A third-party was provided. See Big-Boards.com.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogicalCreator (talk • contribs) 14:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but not reliable. -- Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 05:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * speedy delete Not notable dating website, does not meet a7. note that article creator has attempted to circumvent this AFD, by removing the template from the article page. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It made A7 because any article that makes a credible claim of significance fails the criteria, even if not supported by a RS. -- Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 05:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails Notability. No reliable third party sources included in the article, and I could not find any on my own.Rorshacma (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable website. Only reliable source was a news article quote consisting of "John Manzenberger... pleaded no contest to the molestation charges ....contacted the teen through FaceTheJury.com...".  I don't think that is quite the same as an op-ed piece by the New York Times.  The other "source", Big-Boards.com is miles from being a reliable source.  Dennis Brown (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete As noted above, a big website doesn't automatically mean notability, and one incidental mention in a reliable source certainly doesn't establish it. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Sources provided are woefully inadequate to establish notability, and a Google search turned up nothing promising. Clearly not-notable. It's Alexa ranking is very low: [], so claims of notbility by the article's creator are highly exaggerated. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2012 (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.