Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People Fisher


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Roy boy cr ash  fan   01:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

People Fisher
A social networking service with only 1000 registered members (comparatively few), and no assertion of notability. Seemingly fails WP:WEB, particularly since the site is so new (the article acknowledges the site was "started in April 2006". Was deed so am bringing this for discussion here. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as spamvertisement. Looking at List of social networking websites, it should be larger by several orders of magnitude before its wiki-worthy.  Bucketsofg 20:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete too new, small -- getcrunk   juice  contribs 01:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete spammish.BehroozZ 02:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly not acceptable per WP:WEB. NTK 10:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Give me a day or so to NPOV it some. If I can reduce it to facts, minus the growth fact, would that be acceptable? --MathaytaceChristou 11:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The article was not nominated for deletion because it lacked a neutral point of view. The reason I nominated for deletion, and seemingly the reason the above users have supported a deletion, is because the People Fisher site seems to lack notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and thus not every website is considered noteworthy. You may read the inclusion criteria for websites at WP:WEB, and if you feel that People Fisher meets these then feel free to amend the article asserting notability. Unless you are able to do this, and demonstrate notability of the content of the article, it seems unlikely that users will support keeping it, however well written it may be. The AfD discussion has still got a fair few days to run, in any case, so you've got time to edit the article as you see fit, just leave the AfD notice in place until the discussion ends. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 16:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Should the entry be deleted, what criteria would the site need to meet in order to justify a second article?--MathaytaceChristou 22:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The criteria that need to be met are those at WP:WEB. Namely one of: the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself, the website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation, or the content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. And crucially, the article must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 08:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete for six months. If it becomes notable, like Bebo, then an article may be in order. Stifle (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2006 (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.