Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nostradamical


 * 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   speedy delete. Tone 21:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nostradamical

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable website. The site has garnered some press, but since the site only launched 2 weeks ago, it is too soon to say that it is notable. Also, the page was authored by the site's founder, so there is a pretty huge conflict of interest involved. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete This article is not a hoax. It describes a notable addition to the current theory on prediction markets and crowd sourcing. Please see: http://blog.mercury-rac.com/2008/01/25/how-to-interpret-prediction-market-results-on-elections/ and http://mashable.com/2008/10/28/nostradamical/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradpyoung (talk • contribs)
 * Comment I have removed the 'hoax' comment, and its related 'Delete' vote, as it was obviously vandalism. The issue with this article isn't that it is a hoax, but that its subject has not yet demonstrated notability.  The references given describe the launch of the website, but they all do so with a question -- will it survive?  The website won't be notable until it has been around long enough to generate definitive press.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. Non-notable website. Unlikely to become notable. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as failing WP:WEB. Of the two references above, only one is independent - the mercury-rac.com blog post itself doesn't mention the site (it is mentioned in a comment to the post, made by the site's founder). --Bonadea (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Easy call, especially considering the short time it's been available coupled with the COI. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:32, 26 January 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.