Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pixrat.com


 * 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 no consensus, too early to tell. If it is not cleaned up, it may stand for deletion again in the future. -- nae'blis 23:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Pixrat.com
non-notable website--U911 16:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: U911 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.


 * Keep: I guess the fact that respectable blogs like Techcrunch or DownloadSquad (of Weblogsinc group) have blogged about Pixrat speaks about its notability and so have the multiple bloggers, with authority, from various countries who have written about Pixrat. I think it is catering to a particular niche of online image/picture collectors. The site seem to have users who use it on regular basis and that too heavily. - Rajaryanmalhotra 16:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * is the article-creator, and a relatively new editor
 * Why discriminate?: Wiki entries for simple bookmarking sites such as digg and delicious exist. Being a picture bookmarking site, it very much makes sense to retain this entry. - WikiUsr 18:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * First-ever comment by, possible sockpuppet.
 * Speedy keep per WP:BITE, WP:AGF, and concerns that this is a bad-faith nomination. This article wasn't even in existence for an entire day, before it was sent to AfD. Give the thing a chance to breathe. Yes, it's written by a new user who's using a more "advertising" tone than he should, but the article is well-sourced, and in my opinion, a good effort by a potentially valuable Wikipedian, who should be encouraged to stay and write in a more encyclopedic tone, rather than just having his article deleted out from under him. --Elonka 20:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment to the people who are talking about referencing blogs and good sourcing, blogs are not a reliable source, because anybody can create a blog and upload material. However, the Indian newspaper qualifies as a reliable source.  We just need one more article.  ColourBurst 15:45, 2 October 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.


 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,