Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The PrintOwners List


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 05:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The PrintOwners List

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

Article about a message board for printers. Ignoring the promotional tone and the weasel words there I can see no notability and it thus fails WP:WEB. Google produces 17 hits, none of any note and Google news produces nothing at all. Nancy talk  21:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Thanks for your comments. We've reposted an edited version that eliminates the non-neutral language and the weasel words. I'm not sure how to respond to the criticism that the topic lacks notability except to say that counting Google hits is not necessarily the best way of determining this. Because the PrintOwners List is specialized, it is known to and used by a relatively small group of people--the print shop owners for which it was created. However, for more than 10 years, these users have continued to regard it as a valuable professional resource. Hence our conclusion that the PrintOwners List should be represented in Wikipedia. I do hope that you will reconsider your recommendation to delete it. User:Yourcorrespondent
 * Wikipedia has a very clearly defined notion of notability which requires the website to have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. I accept that google is not the be-all and end-all but it often gives a good indication, particularly when looking at subjects which post-date the internet but if you can supply some reliable sources to demonstrate the WP:WEB notability of the site then that would be really helpful and will greatly improve the article's chance of survival. Nancy  talk  08:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:WEB and also per the post above, the owner seems to regard a wikipedia article as free advertising/publicity. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - No reliable sources provided to establish notability, nor were any found when searching myself. Google may not be arbiter of notability but one would expect that there would be sources found via google when the subject is an online discussion group.  -- Whpq (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Would testimony from participants in the PrintOwners List be acceptable as evidence of notability? User:Yourcorrespondent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.49.222 (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - testimony wouldn't do it. Please read the guidelines and policy for notability and reliable sources for more information. -- Whpq (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per above reasons. Boston (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:54, 5 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.