Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GhostSingles.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 delete. J04n(talk page) 13:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

GhostSingles.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Somebody's joke, with one-off coverage of said joke. No actual notability, short-term or long-term. Calton | Talk 00:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete don't see a chance of this being notable. Home Lander (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete There are sources from good, reliable publications out there, but they all came out in or around October 2013. Which means WP:NEWSBRIEF applies to this one. Gargleafg (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 06:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Belongs to Encyclopedia Dramatica. Acnetj (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep -- as, this topic has been covered in WP:RS. The question is, does this topic measure up to WP:GNG?  WP:ATA has a section for nominator -- WP:IDONTLIKEIT
 * As for the suggestion that all the references date to 2013... 30 seconds with google news showed me the site is still being mentioned in 2017 and 2018...


 * url
 * Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So thirty seconds of Googling gets you three passing references in three joke stories? Mind pointing out how that qualifies as "in-depth coverage"?
 * WP:ATA has a section for nominator -- WP:IDONTLIKEIT There's no alphabet-soup shortcut for "lazy contrarianism in a desperate bid to salvage the unsalvageable", but maybe there should be. --Calton | Talk 01:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , I was surprised, when I checked your block log, as to how many times you have been blocked for incivility. Let me join the many people who have pleaded with you to comply with our civility policies and conventions.  Part of being more civil would be to drop the tactic of using strawman arguments.  Civil contributors hate trying to civilly discuss editorial issues with contributors who distort what they said.  I clearly explained that the references I included were to counter  claim that ALL the coverage dated to October 2013.  Its true that there was a cluster of coverage in October 2013.  But Gargleafg was incorrect to claim ALL coverage dated to that period.  The existence of RS that discussed the topic, in 2018, shows that it has had ongoing coverage, for years -- even if the recent coverage is not in depth.  Geo Swan (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And I'm not surprised, based on YOUR history, that you would resort to stalking my edits -- like you do here -- because you've been stymied in inserting garbage in other articles and personal attacks when you fail badly at that. Keep this up, and we'll see whose block log gets longer.
 * If I were to bring up YOUR history, I could point to your long history of misunderstanding basic sourcing and notability standards -- like here -- and your irrelevant Wikilawyering -- like here -- that attempts to muddy the basic facts. Your "counter-argument" hinging on the use of the word "all" to counter the "non-trivial" point -- as I pointed out -- WAS and still is weak and irrelevant. --Calton | Talk 00:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And I'm not surprised, based on YOUR history, that you would resort to stalking my edits -- like you do here -- because you've been stymied in inserting garbage in other articles and personal attacks when you fail badly at that. Keep this up, and we'll see whose block log gets longer.
 * If I were to bring up YOUR history, I could point to your long history of misunderstanding basic sourcing and notability standards -- like here -- and your irrelevant Wikilawyering -- like here -- that attempts to muddy the basic facts. Your "counter-argument" hinging on the use of the word "all" to counter the "non-trivial" point -- as I pointed out -- WAS and still is weak and irrelevant. --Calton | Talk 00:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I drafted an essay, at Coverage of ghostsingles is tongue in cheek. Geo Swan (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Your essay makes a comparison between NORAD Tracks Santa and this page. That is a false analogy, since you are trying to equate "tongue in cheek" coverage of a phenomenon which has had "significant coverage" over a "long period of time" (i.e. since the late 1950s) with "tongue in cheek" trivial mentions of this subject (even if there are multiple trivial mentions over some period of time, if they are just trivial mentions (like, for example, any of the three above articles), then they do not constitute "significant coverage"). Your argument that we should keep this because there's coverage on other "tongue in cheek subjects" also sums up to WP:BUTITEXISTS. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - I cleaned up some minor typos and added another source of coverage. It just barely meets my threshold for WP:GNG, although I would like to see more about the founder and the history of the site, as well as more current info showing that it has staying power and recurring relevance. Otherwise, the WP:NEWSBRIEF argument gets stronger.  Right now, I see WP:NEWSBRIEF applying more to one time news events - not web sites that are ongoing and continuing to exist. The lask of history and more current coverage (beyond what is highlighted above) is the only thing that keeps me from giving this a regular keep vote. I read the essay and also agree that the NORAD Santa example is not the best comparison, but my overarching guideline is WP:GNG, regardless of if it's satirical subject matter or not. I also noticed that the creator has not weighed in, probably because he doesn't know he can vote. I'm not sure how much weight that would have for the closer, regardless.  Of interesting note - the article creator appears to be a student studying English at Arkansas State University, and this was a course assignment. [] One way or the other, this will be a Wikipedia learning experience for him. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  19:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is promotional in its nature WP:PROMO and (according to the 11 references) has appeared 10 times in articles from October 2013; four being WP:RS (Time, news.com.au & CBS). WP:NEWSBRIEF definitely applies.  Does not meet WP:GNG because there is no substantial coverage in WP:RS evident.  Just because people are still talking about it does not make it notable and google hits are not an indication of notability WP:GHITS, WP:E=N. 8&#61;&#61;8 Boneso (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2018 (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.