Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scoopasia


 * 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.  Sango 123  18:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Scoopasia
This appears to be an article about a website that furnishes services to public relations professionals who work primarily in the Asian and Pacific Rim regions. Presently, the language hardly reflects a neutral viewpoint: it uses promotional language to redirect encyclopedia users to the services the site offers. If it were to be written with a neutral point of view, I believe very little more can be said about it than the summary I've written here, so the article would be a stub. Could the stub be developed into anything more substantial?

As of this writing, 28 August 2006, Google returns approximately 240 hits on the phrase 'Scoopasia'; these wholly fall into the realms of:

1. Wikipedia hits or hits on mirrors of Wikipedia, either on the article Scoopasia or on News release, which Melvinyuan had edited on 10 July 2006, furnishing a link to the Scoopasia site in the 'External Links' section. Melvinyuan is also the principle author of Scoopasia. (This external link was removed in early August; the editor who removed the link thought that it was advertising).

2. references from bloggers or individuals in link concentration sites who've noted the existence of the site but have not offered any independent views as to the site's notability

3. Pages that have since disappeared ("404")

4. Echoed content from scoopasia itself.

No evidence of awards granted to the site has been found by me, nor are well known and independent parties distributing Scoopasia content as noteworthy and useful material.

This is not to say that Scoopasia doesn't serve its community, but I conclude that it does not do so in a noteworthy fashion that has caught the attention of neutral observers. The article, having as its topic a (presumed) notewothy website, fails the policy for such: Notability (web) in my opinion. Let the discussion begin. Gosgood 13:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * weak keep obviously needs cleanup, but potentially notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No assertion of notablity. Zaxem 03:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, — Mets 501 (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable, currently blatant advertisement. Carson 23:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete :) Dlohcierekim 01:46, 7 September 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.