Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parlus


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Parlus

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

non notable sns website Christ Thomas (talk) 09:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

— Penichet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — Lack of reliable sources establishing notability. Not only could I not find any sources in a quick search, but the possibly reliable sources listed in the article have no mention of the website. MuZemike  ( talk ) 01:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable, fails WP:WEB. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  16:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't understand why the Parlus article was tagged for deletion in the first place by Christ Thomas a user who, "coincidentally", does not exist. And who did not inform me, the creator of the article. References 1 & 2 refer to Parlus itself; references 3 & 4 refer to the original domain name of schoolfriends.ie - perhaps editors were looking for Parlus in the latter references and did not read the Parlus article itself to be aware of the original website name. References 6-9 were included based on a request for citation by editor Smackbot. The MAIN notability for this article is reference 10, the favourable Wikinomics review of the website; being part of the Wiki group, it is most definitely notable. Penichet (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - References are press releases, non-notable blogs, or have nothing to do with subject . Yes I read the above note by Penichet.  See wp:Reliable Sources.  Google struggles to bring up a few press releases. The one Wikinomics blog reference is an okay start, but the subject still does not meet wp:web's "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."  Perhaps the article can be revisited after the site matures a bit.--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Comment I'm afraid I disagree. You could say that reference 1 is a press release and reference 2 a non-notable blog but not the rest.  ALL of the references refer to Parlus or its predecessor, schoolfriends.ie which means that all of them are relevant.  Reference 3 is from the newsletter of the Irish government agency - Enterpise Ireland - responsible for the development and promotion of the indigenous business sector - it is not a press release or a blog.  Reference 4 is from the Gazette (newsletter) of the prestigious Irish Law Society - it is not a press release or a blog.  As mentioned in my last entry, references 6-9 were included based on a request for citation by editor Smackbot to back up the origins of the domain name (parlús, Irish for parlour, a social salon).  The Wikinomics reference is most definitely notable.  If you say it is not, then you do not know what Wikinomics is all about - I suggest that you do some research on Wikinomics.  This article is a critical, professional & non-partisan review of Parlus and its ground-breaking work and how it fits into the Wikinomics model.  The article is in the blog section of wikinomics.com; the first 2 contributors are the authors of the book Wikinomics; the rest of the contributors are professionals and vetted i.e. participation is limited and therefore not open to just anybody.  It is without a shadow of a doubt a NOTABLE reference. Penichet (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I've made no other contributions - yet - as I'm new to Wikipedia. It never occurred to me that I had something to contribute.  And, more importantly, it seemed a monumental task - until I actually started doing it - to even find out HOW to contribute. Penichet (talk) 10:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No independent reliable sources. Descíclope (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Commnent I suggest that further editors including Descíclope (talk) check the comments and amendments made by Omarcheeseboro (talk) above. Whereas there may be some doubt that the other references conform to the Wikipedia notability criteria, the Wikinomics reference is without a shadow of a doubt an independent reliable source. Penichet (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2008 (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.