Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TwilightBlue


 * 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

TwilightBlue

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

Travel website, which does not appear to be notable. Creator is an SPA, so that triggers COI/spam bells.  &mdash;To rc.  ( Ta lk. ) 10:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

 Don't Delete - Page is richer in content that a number of other travel sites. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelsupermarket.com. Yes the page refering to the site is newish, but all site were once - Site owner --christopher_nz
 * Maybe, but citing other poor quality wikis is not really an argument TrulyBlue (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies, my edit comment for the above stated that "Other Stuff Exists" is a policy - it isn't, it's a guide, but I think it's relevant here. TrulyBlue (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK Maybe your're right on this point, but nevertheless it's a page about something that has required a lot of communual effort, and for a small outfit it brings together unique technology synergies (i.e. xml/xslt transformations with 3rd party data and google ajax apis). Also it may not have a lot of history, but nevertheless it's currently going through alot of evolution. Site owner --christopher_nz


 * Christopher, I see that you are the owner of the site which is the subject of the article; you created the article; and you are the only person supporting the article. Please be aware of the conflict of interest policy (and especially "avoid, or exercise great caution when: ... Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization..."). I think that your best way of contributing to the debate would be to ensure that the article shows the notability of the subject matter, and takes a neutral point of view.  If the company has made some genuine technical breakthrough then it may possibly be notable, but we'd need secondary sources to demonstrate that.  TrulyBlue (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree - delete - non-notable, bordering on advertising. TrulyBlue (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable and pretty much just a basic description of what the website is. Also advertising. --Tombomp (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very new website, and without evidence of passing, or coming close to passing, WP:WEB criteria. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Possible speedy under WP:CSD - spam with no good version to revert to. Pedro : Chat  12:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: non-notable, web based business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination.Jellogirl (talk) 17:16, 14 February 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.