Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spacedaily.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 - filelake shoe  &#xF0F6;   09:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Spacedaily.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Although I see this website used as citations in Google Books and as citations in many Wikipedia articles, this is non-notable. This may be a reliable source, but not all reliable sources are notable. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  →TSU tp* 06:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WEB and GNG. I can see why a previous speedy nomination could have been declined, but can't see how it's possible to keep in an AFD, based on a reasonable search for sources. A search for information on the founder doesn't seem to help. This page has appeared in mainspace for seven years with zero sources. BusterD (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep If its a WP:RS in Google Books, maybe its better to keep it just as a reference for amateurs here, nothing more, even if if its not very notable in the mass media. Its been here since 2005 anyway and scientists use it for their work. --Artene50 (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason to keep, nor is the fact it's been here a WP:LONGTIME. The article is unreferenced, and no references can be found that indicate notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- →gab  24 dot  grab← 16:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that sometimes blind allegiance to the GNG/N are not always in our best interest and instinctively I'm minded that we should keep this but I'm struggling to articulate a policy based reason to do so... Spartaz Humbug! 18:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's always WP:IAR, but even if they're not GNG quality some references are needed per WP:V... - The Bushranger One ping only 18:45, 19 June 2012 (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.