Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speakaboos


 * 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.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Speakaboos

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

non notable websites Christ Thomas (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: I gave a second look to the couple of references that aren't the Speakaboos website, and they're both copies of a press release. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete — I'll contest that the blog entry is reliable, as the blogger is an editor of a newspaper, but that's it. The press releases are self-published, so there's nothing else that is independent of the topic that can establish notability. MuZemike  ( talk ) 02:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. Insufficient coverage, doesn't pass WP:WEB, and article has a slightly promotional tone. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:WEB. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As the creator of the page I can only say please judge the entry based on the notability of the website and not on my inexperience with wikipedia. I've found editing wikipedia pages to be a rather difficult and discouraging experience, and I request that rather than just searching for reasons why the page should be deleted, can't other users help by adding changes to make the page better adhere to wikipedia standards? Shouldn't wikipedia strive to cover more websites rather than fewer? There are numerous other blog and web mentions about the site which I can add but I feel like I've already done enough. Since a policy of wikipedia is that pages should have multiple editors, then please, edit. Thanks for your time.--Cathorserobot (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The policy is that articles should be verifiable, neutral, and free from original research, for which we require multiple in-depth sources published by independent people with reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Press releases don't cut the mustard.  Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since one is supposed to actually look for sources at AFD, not just look at what is cited in the article, I have. I found an article about this WWW site by Josh Lowensohn on CNET News, and an article by Angela Gunn on BetaNews.  Uncle G (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2008 (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.