Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertree


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Libertree

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability, no independent references. The creator removed a prod tag, giving (in his own words) links to "four german blog posts", none of which would seem to constitute a reliable source. He also mentions that there is an article on the German Wikipedia, but again this does not constitute a reliable source. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I was not able to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Blogs don't count, and neither does an article in another language Wikipedia.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  02:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This portal is called Pagewizz, it is a platform where writers can put there article on to earn money trough advertisement (proof here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadlyhappen (talk • contribs) 15:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. I can't find any sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep because it is notable. I have found five blog posts, a screencast from a well known internet radio and an article in an authors web portal. My arguments standing all an the talk page of the article. --Deadlyhappen (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Please see WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. In particular, blogs do not - see also Verifiability. I don't read German well enough to be sure, but theradio.cc also seems like a self-published source. I can't see what you mean by the 'article in an authors web portal', but again that doesn't sound like a RS to me. AndrewWTaylor (talk)
 * Response TheRadio.cc isn't a self-published source, it is a free online radio which streams music which is under the creativecommons license (proof here).
 * Isn't that the definition of "self-published"? None of your links establish notability, as they're all non-RS. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep because the article, was viewed over 254 times in the last 30 days, so it is notable though. (proof here) --Deadlyhappen (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't get to !vote twice, and the number of times a page has been viewed has nothing to do with whether it is notable. postdlf (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:WEBCRIT. Carola O (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete no WP:RS found to meet WP:WEBCRIT. EricSerge (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete&mdash;per WP:NSOFT, WP:TOOSOON. If the software takes off they'll be plenty of reliable sources to use then.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2013 (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.