Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megacams


 * 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. Tone 21:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Megacams

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

1) Insignificant (WP:Notability) 2) Stub without detail 3) Only passing mentions on sources - no in-depth information about history or workings. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 17:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 17:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Eh? That looks like four good sources to me... you won't get NY Times leaders about this subject; as far as coverage in reasonable-length articles goes, this ain't half bad. And these aren't passing mentions either - the website is the explicit focus of each. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Elmidae and the GNG. As for workings, Vocativ discusses the search engine's general algorithm while Gizmodo speculates what API the engine must be using . Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: does not meet WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH. Sources are in passing, trivial mentions, and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Seems like we need more discussion on source quality still

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. <i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. <i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - This webite is not notable. The Zeus is Ha-Zeus (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - All of the sources I'm seeing, including those in the article, come from the span of a couple days, and there doesn't look to have been any coverage since. We need evidence of lasting significance. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 13:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This argument goes against WP:NTEMP: "once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.