Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sploofus


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sploofus

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

Non-notable website. Article reads like an advertisement Untick (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject certainly warrants an article. It has recieved very significant coverage in three major newspaper:
 * | 'Web site attracts global fan base' by George Tanber in the Toledo Blade.
 * 'Sploofus.com: It's the answer for trivia fans' by Rebecca Coudret in Evansville Courier & Press
 * | 'Where Trivia Knowledge is Power' by Dave Frownfelder in the South Bend Tribune
 * Article does not read like an advertisement. It's well written and well referenced.-- Patton t / c 21:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note . The third of those sources can be viewed by people with paid subscriptions only, and is therefore unverifiable verifiable anyway because I omitted the obvious fact that it was referring to a newspaper source... Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's absolutly ridiculous. These articles were published in major newspapers, and are in the physicial copies. Just because they're not available to everyone online does not make not count towards verifiability. If that were the case books would have to be banned from Wikipedia as sources becuase they do not appear online in their entirety.-- Patton t / c 11:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I oversighted that fact. Regardless, I'm struggling to see how these and the two sources I noted below justify alone an independent article. I'm assuming there's not somewhere suitable we can merge this to? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 11:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They provide lots of verifiable information for a seperate article. Merging this somewhere would cause a mess. It deserves a seperate article considering the amount that can be written about it.-- Patton t / c 11:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * With around five sources? I'd say quite a few more are needed to justify notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 05:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 sources is plenty. It certainly qualifies as significant coverage.-- Patton t / c 10:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hardly for a separate article. How many good/featured articles have such a number of sources? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 12:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 of my GAs have 4 or 5 sources.-- Patton t / c 14:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, I'm still doubtful on basing the article on what's essentially three regional newspapers and a couple of sources from PRWeb; sure, it might bring the article up to GA standard, but FA, the criteria of which states that sourcing must be "characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature"? I'm not entirely convinced that these sources alone can bring the article up to such a standard. To be honest, though, I think I'll settle at a weak keep to give the article time to expand. I'm somewhat in a state of flux at this point in evaluating its notability, and I think only expansions based on the provided sources can resolve that. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Many of our articles have no hope of ever becoming FAs due to sourcing. Take any of our articles about retired athletes who wona f ew medals.-- Patton t / c 14:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MLauba (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability isn't the same as fame or importance, enough WP:RS to support inclusion. MLauba (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Being written like an advertisement is an editing matter that ought not require the use of special tools, such as deletion, to resolve. Remember, we are a work-in-progress: content shouldn't be deleted for being unsatisfactory, which would be a particular problem since we keep changing the standards, but for being irredeemable. --Kiz o r  21:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete (see above). The existing sources are far from sufficient, and Google turns up little notability either; the only significant coverage seems to be this and this, and, past there, nothing seems to stand out (Google News Search turns up nothing, either). This alone hardly justifies notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – the given sources establish sufficient notability of the site. The tone of the article could improve, but I don't think it completely justifies deletion, especially when it's not blatant. MuZemike 00:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Odd nomination, especially considering that there are more reliable, independent, non-trivial sources for this article than a number of other articles the nominator typically votes "Keep" on (and for which he/she gets upset when I vote Delete and explain why his explanations do not follow actual notability standards). Seems to be part of a recent series of nominations made against articles I created... all of which have failed. DreamGuy (talk) 18:47, 9 April 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.