Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StuRents


 * 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. Onetwo three... 04:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

StuRents

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

Non-notable web service with poor or invalid sources and paltry / non-existent web search results. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional comments: Article was tagged for issues (deleted without resolution) and conflict of interest, as the creator and one subsequent major contributor accounts share the names of the founders of the service. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Well written, but still promotional in tone.  No showing of notability under the business or website guidelines.  The only claims for notability are local trade awards, not the sort of thing that equals widespread, general, impartial notice outside the trade or location. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The original article was written by one of the founders of the site. I have since attempted to rewrite it and remove aspects which would be considered advertising or promotional in tone. Whilst the site is only currently being used by students of Durham University it is expanding and has received press coverage in local news papers (I wasn't sure what references on the article this could be used to cite). Google search for related terms has not gained traction just yet as few sites in similar industries are linking to them, but a search for "sturents" gives the first two pages of results connected to the site, many of which are entirely independent sources. - M1ke (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete When it becomes notable, as judged by substantial coverage, and major awards, then there can perhaps be an article. There's a standard reason given at RfA: Not Now. The same general idea applies here too.  DGG (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. It won a local award, but it's still only known in the NE of England, and it has had no news coverage. If and when it becomes notable, recreate it. Fences and windows (talk) 20:24, 18 May 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.