Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheckymagazine.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   delete. The keeps didn't adequately address the issues with the sources that the deletes had. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sheckymagazine.com

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Marginally notable website, written as an advert by the publisher,. The article has been in pretty much this state since it was created in June 2007 and is still an orphan except for the publisher inserting links about himself. Toddst1 (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC) *Keep No indication that nominator has followed all the preliminary alternatives to deletion. -- TheGriefer (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article could potentially be saved, but would require the initial author to stay out of it due to conflict of interest concerns. The article's current sources are articles that cited the subject website themselves, so some research would be required to neutralize the point-of-view. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * blocked sockpuppet J.delanoy gabs adds  23:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I deprodded. There are adequate secondary reliable sources to show notability. It needs editing to keep it neutral, but it's certainly not unsalvagable. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources are in per Fences, and appear sound. Needs a good wash and brush-up, of course and the author seriously needs to note WP:COI. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources provided do not meet WP:GNG standards showing multiple incidents of reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage. Sources prove the site exists, not that it's notable, and certainly not that it is notable enough to have its own WIkipedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment, I found some RS using Wikpedia Reference Search.. There are obvious coi concerns however. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It looks as if the article already links to reliable sources covering the magazine in some detail. It does need work, but AFD is not cleanup. Tim  meh  14:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Though there are second/third-party sources which mention the website it doesn't appear to meet General Notability as it appears to be trivial coverage ("a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site"). PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I see it was flagged for rescue so this AfD could be "swarmed" but the references added are the very definition of "trivial" as Panyd points out. Significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources is needed for the topic of the article to be notable and that just isn't demonstrated. Timmeh, you apparently didn't click through to actually check the resources to see if they were trivial. Drawn Some (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the good faith, Drawn Some. I tagged it; would you like to accuse me of disruptive behaviour directly or will you stick to being snide? Let's try + numerous more brief references.  Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW: Doing a search via McAfee, I learned that ten (10) other wikipedia entries link to the SHECKYmagazine.com entry. (Not sure how McAfee determines this, but I just thought I'd throw it out there, as some folks say that a lack of other entries pointing to the entry in question is a sign of illegitimacy. And, conversely, ten other entries pointing to the entry in question might contribute to the legitimacy of the entry in question.)  Full disclosure:  I put it up there in the first place, so I am naturally biased.

70.18.178.158 (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The exact number of articles that link to a given page can be found by using the "What links here" tab in the toolbox on the left of the screen. Only one actual article actually links to the page in question, the rest are list pages for various deletion categories. --Leivick (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete ... I first thought this article might be saved, but when I looked at the other link (in Deadpan), it's so self-serving it isn't even funny; it lists the author of the article (and of the website) as someone who is a "notable" deadpan comedian. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:25, 9 July 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.