Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackthedonkey.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. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Jackthedonkey.com

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There's currently 1 reference in the article, which does appear to be a valid, reliable source. However, after I removed one non-reliable source, there's nothing else. Furthermore, I can't find any information on this site in news or even general online searches that isn't directly related to the company. As such, I don't believe that this site has received enough coverage to establish notability via WP:WEB or WP:GNG. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.


 * Delete. Also advertising: a social network for social good where members are encouraged to be social, discover new music, while making change for the charity of their choice - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 *  Keep  - I have rewritten the article to remove the advertising and added sources. I believe the site meets notability guidelines.  GB fan (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Relooking at the sources that I added (based on Qwyrxian analysis on article talk page) and after looking for other sources and not finding any I have to change my recomendation. GB fan (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Thanks to the efforts of GB fan. Nice work on an article I almost nominated for speedy delete!   78.26  (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment:No, sorry, not a single one of those meets WP:RS as an independent, reliable sources. THose are press releases, blog posts, and other SPS. I have removed all of them per WP:RS, and thus the article still has only one independent, reliable source, not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because you do not think they are reliable sources does not mean they can't be used in the article. I have replaced them.  You can argue that they aren't reliable sources which would impact notability but sources even primary ones can be used as sources to verify information.  GB fan (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If those are the best sources that are out there, then no, they don't really make a case for notability (and a site called killerstartups.com probably makes a case against it.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it doesn't matter much, but I think you (GB Fan) are fundamentally wrong about sources: every time any editors sees any patently unreliable source (blogs, SPS, press releases, etc.) in any article, it should be removed immediately. But, that has no real impact on this deletion discussion, as you point out. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Hard to tell if this is a joke, given its name? I think it might be serious, but hardly notable among the many similar sites that come and go. I do not follow above comment, since "patently unreliable" seems a bit of an opinion. With the demise of paper publishing, we going to rely more and more on online news sources. I see it more of a continuum, and these tend to be of the more self-congratulating nature. So will vote negative on this. W Nowicki (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2011 (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.