Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Galactic Guide


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Project Galactic Guide

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I found a ref from 2000 on the BBC about this website. It also received a very large 141k Google hits.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Google hits don't show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, I am just saying that it isn't just a made up website someone added to advertise.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ( X! ·  talk )  · @136  · 02:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 00:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:WEB.   talk 12:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 02:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - WP:N, WP:WEB. Couldn't find any sources other than the above-referenced BBC page. —  æk Talk  03:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. On the plus side, I was able to use Google Scholar to find a research paper that describes the site, although there is no indication of where (or if) the paper might have been published. On the minus side, the "BBC" reference that TParis00ap found is actually a wiki page, not a report from BBC news, and therefore doesn't count as a reliable source. So with only one maybe-reliable source discovered after three relists, I think it is safe to say that there is not enough WP:RS coverage of this site to demonstrate notability. --RL0919 (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't pass WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:08, 19 December 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.