Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thewittyshit.com


 * 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   no consensus. L Faraone  02:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thewittyshit.com

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A7 speedies on this article have been declined twice before, and a third nomination just popped up. Although I personally see no reason to advocate the deletion of this article, I've brought it here to settle the matter once and for all. Neutral.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, nothing indicates notability of this webste. I nominated it for deletion, as I had not realized it had been nominated before.  The fact that people keep wanting to nominate it indicates evidence that a lot of people don't think it's notable.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The coverage cited in the article is probably sufficient, although some of it is as much about the website's creators as the website itself.--Michig (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What notability does the article claim? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:GNG. If it has received significant coverage in reliable sources, it's notable.--Michig (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What reliable sources? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * keepThis article provides sufficient information and also has enough external links to prove its notability..Brat tariq (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC). — Brat tariq (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The number of sources is not a claim of notability. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If multiple third party reliable sources are available then it has notability...its notable. --Brat tariq (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - unremarkable website. I'm not seeing significant coverage from the provided sources, tho - I see some passing mentions and what look like product placement/press releases in local papers - not enough to signify greater notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * local paper..? sources mentioned here like DNA newspaper,India Today are national publications and hold a great significance in India.thus they definitely provide notability--Brat tariq (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources: India Today, DNA News. There's also coverage in Yahoo Campus (India) and mentions in Mid-Day. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete one round of publicity less than six months after founding doesn't notability make. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2012 (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.