Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STDUniversity.org


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

STDUniversity.org

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable website, that does not meet WP:ORG Codf1977 (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —Codf1977 (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  —Codf1977 (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  —Codf1977 (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable website, does not meet the website notability guideline either, no published sources.  COI notice - I got my undergrad degree from there. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep article - While Wikipedia's notability guidelines are fairly substantial, they are also, to an extent, open to interpretation. This topic is no more or less notable than similar pages that have not been tagged for deletion; specifically, STD Wizard, which is a similar website that seems to have been deemed notable enough to stay. In fact, if STD Wizard has more external media to back it up on the notability front, then this is due to the fact that it is a much older site. As someone who is familiar with the work of both sites, I fail to see a distinction. Of course, this isn't a plea to have the STD Wizard entry removed; quite the contrary - it is an important resource of which people ought to be aware. However, so too does STDUniversity.org serve a similarly notable purpose. Thank you. --HealthGal (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comparison with another article is irrelevant. For one thing that one may show more notability than this one, even if you don't see it; for another thing they may both lack notability: there are, unfortunately, many articles which do not satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines but have not yet been dealt with. If the current topic does not have external sources to support its notability because it is new then it is not yet notable, whether or not it may become notable in the future. The fact that the site "serves a ... notable purpose" is not a criterion for inclusion: Wikipedia's notability standard is based on coverage in independent sources, not on what purpose the subject seeks to serve. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete A lack of independent sources, either cited in the article or found on searching. Also the article is somewhat promotional in character. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable sources to demonstrate any notability for this organization; "ought to be aware" isn't the same as "are aware", and unfortunately the difference is advertising.  Closing admin please note also that Tracey Powell by the same creator is currently tagged for speedy deletion and asserts roughly the same level of notability for his connection with this website.  Accounting4Taste: talk 17:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am currently working to revise the Tracey Powell article and am happy to do the same with this one as well. However, you state that the piece "asserts roughly the same level of notability for his connection with this website." If you read the article on Powell, you'll see that it barely makes mention of this website, but rather, focuses on his career and contributions to the medical testing field. I appreciate your position with respect to either article, but your comment above implies that the Powell article's only claim to notability lies in the fact that he is connected with this website, which is far from the case.

--HealthGal (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I've moved the article Tracey Powell to User:HealthGal/Tracey Powell so it could be worked on there. I've informed the user of the citation, notability and weasel/peacock guidelines which would need to be addressed before it could be moved back.  There is every possiblity that notability will not be achieved. If so, fair enough.  I would suggest to the closing admin of this afd that instead of deleting, the same could be done here.  Stephen! Coming... 23:29, 23 March 2010 (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.