Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lockerz


 * 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 '''Deleted and WP:SALTed. No reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)'''

Lockerz

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No reliable sources given or found to establish notability for a website/product/company. Google News gives a reasonable number of hits, but they are blogs, non-notable sources, trivial mentions, or invite spam. Strongly suggest salting article, it has been deleted six times previous to this version. tedder (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Does the fact that I am already infuriated by this company's viral marketing mean that I have a conflict of interest in voting to delete this? 69.128.47.243 (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Page needs a TON of work though. However, Lockerz is notable precisely because of it's very widespread viral marketing.  Since it has not yet been officially released, you will be unlikely to find a great number of references, however, as the site is officially launching very soon, I expect that to change. --HeroofTime55 (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This is unlikely to be true. I suspect that the "launching soon" and "Beta ends soon" is part of their marketing strategy. It appears that users are instructed to post "Beta ends ________" (where ___ is a couple days later) when they post their referral link, because we've been seeing messages of this nature for weeks. Without more proof outside their own word, this is an unverified statement and should NOT weigh on whether this article is kept. If anything, it should probably weigh against it &mdash; TheBilly(Talk) 08:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Websites spamming the internet doesn't make them notable, see N. And 'it's going to be notable soon' isn't much good either, see WP:ATA.--Otterathome (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - What HeroofTime55 said. I keep hearing about this site, and without Wikipedia, I'd still have no idea what it was. This article definitely needs a lot of work based on its current state, but it's still a necessary one. --V2Blast (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per Tedder. Site does not meet our guidelines for inclusion for websites.—  Dæ dαlusContribs 02:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I cannot see how this is notable at this time. ArcAngel (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Lockerz is simply another non-notable reward site that functions just like YourFreeiStuff. I do remember seeing someone spamming links to this site on 4chan last month, in an attempt to get others to join Lockerz. 68.79.95.80 (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - What the other two "keepers" said. People should be able to go here just to check what, for example, Lockerz is without risking getting viruses or alike by having to go to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.233.197.132 (talk)
 * That isn't a reason to keep. The website simply does not meet our criteria for being notable.—  Dæ dαlusContribs 23:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a website directory. We're not here to help you find out what this website is. It has not been reported on by any important or reputable media outlets. There is nothing encyclopedic to say about it at this point. In the future, maybe it will be seen as something that was notable (I'd wager for negative reasons), but currently it's just a random website. It may have the illusion of "notability" to random passers-by because links to it are spammed out ad nausem, but that's not WIKIPEDIA notability. That's not OUR standard. Any referral scheme will be spammed out constantly; that's the whole point of it. The fact that links to it pervade all messsageboards currently means absolutely nothing at all. For comparison, "MyBrute" was the craze a few months ago. That was spammed out in the same volume, and it didn't warrant a Wikipedia article as a result......which should be obvious. Until Wired reports on it or something (again, probably for negative reasons), there is nothing substantial here and no potential &mdash; TheBilly(Talk) 08:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - MyBrute was covered on BBC Click a few months ago. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt - fails verifiability and notability tests. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt per Orangemike. ukexpat (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete fails all applicable notability guidelines.--Otterathome (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * response - declining speedy - there is what I read as an assertion of notability; despite my opinion (already given), the AfD process should be allowed to take its course. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - has sources such as these, so it is verifiable and notable. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Neither of those appear to be reliable sources, as they are blogs. tedder (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the two blog post references from the article. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  22:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Kori Ellis, author of the Splendidcity post, is the Senior Editor at b5media. Doesn't that make it reliable?--Joshua Issac (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2009 (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.