Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tech.co.uk


 * 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 Redirect to Future Publishing in lieu of deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 05:28Z 

Tech.co.uk

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

New article. While I believe it does assert its notability (and therefore not a candidate for SD), I don't believe it meets WP:WEB. The site is still in beta for starters. ↔NMajdan &bull;talk 16:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * keep This page was marked for deletion while it was still being worked upon, less than 10 minutes afer creation. I think it is fine for WP:WEB, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it! I don't think the fact the site is in Beta is really relevant to whether it's included on Wikipedia or not. There are some pretty good articles on the site TBH. Robertpauljames 16.45 5 February 2007 -- Robertpauljames (talk * contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Why is this marked for deletion? It's clearly only a stub currently - and it's hardly going to be a comprehensive article such a short time after creation. bobbs11 16.45 5 February 2007 -- bobbs11 (talk * contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I marked it for deletion because I believe it fails WP:WEB. If you feel other wise, feel free to vote.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 00:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * keep The site is obviously new, but is notable because of its references I think. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.113.198.67 (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC). -- 212.113.198.67 (talk *  contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * keep I edited the page to make it more suitable for WIkipedia Garynorris2 12.55 6 February 2007 -- Garynorris2 (talk * contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. This article reads like an advertisment, is being edited by single-purpose conflict-of-interest accounts, and fails WP:WEB. This does not belong on Wikipedia. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments. I've not examined carefully enough to comment on the current worthiness of the article, but I do think that it is worth bearing in mind that it seems to be replacing websites for several well-known UK magazines. Therefore I believe that it will, in time, be more worthy of inclusion. In that case, it may be more worthwhile letting the article stand and be improved over time, rather than deleting, to be recreated when the website has gone live.
 * I feel I should also point out that User:Danielgrabham has edited the article and is possibly an employee of Future publishing, who run the site (the article itself lists a Dan Grabham as one of the staff). His edits seem to be minor ones, so I have just pointed out WP:COI to this user. However, given there are several possible single-purpose accounts involved, I am concerned that there may be further COIs and that there is some element of self-promotion going on. Of course, this is mere speculation, and I should assume good faith. Plus, even if I am correct, this does not make for an inherently bad article. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 23:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. The damned thing is still in Beta, and there's no sign it's noteworthy. --Calton | Talk 23:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete a single website of a notable publisher, not yet launched, no evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 08:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments. I am indeed the Dan Grabham that works for Future Publishing. I believed the minor edits I made to this article shouldn't be too much of a problem for WP:COI as they were largely error checking but of course I accept Ollie pointing it out to me. I have no knowledge of the users who originally made this article- they could, of course, be others in the company. Indeed, the article's existence somewhat surprised me a few days ago. I'm not surprised it's a candidate for deletion as we are still in Beta, but I would point out that the site will replace many others referenced on Wikipedia and will (hopefully) be noteworthy in a relatively short space of time. Danielgrabham 12:21, 7 February 2007 (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.