Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turbobricks


 * 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 speedy delete A7. Jaranda wat's sup 14:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Turbobricks

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY for inclusion. Hu12 09:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no sources whatsoever. Jakew 09:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete agree, even with sources, no notability --  Chil dzy  ¤  Ta lk  09:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

KEEPS THE TURBOBRICKS!!!! :-) - The Griz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.251.138 (talk • contribs) — 81.178.251.138 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep - Seems notable with 17,300 google results. And afterall, wikipedia is supposed to be the The sum of all human knowledge - Fosnez 10:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment it's actually 282 hits rather than 17,300 if you discount the duplications, see here. --Oscarthecat 10:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Correction: Google shows only the non-duplicates of the first 1000 hits, so it is 282 unique for the first 1000, not for the complete 17,300. IF you would do the same trick with Microsoft or so, you would only get 500 hits as well. No comment on the value of Turbobricks (seems a delete at first glance), but the unique google hits doesn't count in such cases. Fram 13:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Simply having search results, may mean well paid Search engine optimization. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. This is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Sadly however, google news and Google books show no results.--Hu12 13:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He's been spammin AFDs lately with invalid reasons for keeping articles, seriously stop with your sum of all knowledge keeps, it isn't helpful and any AFD closer with common sense will discount it. Jaranda wat's sup 14:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete lack of sources fails to assert its notability. --Oscarthecat 10:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS, etc Jaranda wat's sup 14:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reading the article closer, I'm speeding it, DB-group Jaranda wat's sup 14:57, 27 August 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.