Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiCrimes


 * 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. Website fails to meet notability standards. As pointed out by MJBurrage, this probably isn't a speedy candidate, but nonetheless still fails WP:WEB. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 21:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiCrimes

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

nn website Mow3212 (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, fails WP:WEB.  Corvus cornix  talk  03:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Ledred.png|20px]] Speedy Delete as per A7. RockManQ (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The articles subject was the subject of multiple, albeit brief, news stories shortly after it creation, that makes it notable. I started the article based on the tail end of a piece I heard on the radio, because I could not find much (in English) and was hoping that another editor would be able to expand on the article.  Admittedly it is still a stub, but that is not grounds for deletion, it is a reason to make an open request on the page for expansion of the article.  Per Editing policy, if we kill stubs for being stubs, they will never get the chance to develop into better articles. —MJBurrage(T•C) 05:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Not for being a stub, but for A7/nn-web-content. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:WEB.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. A startup itself is not notable. But the site establishes an extremely undesirable pattern - poorly mediated, unreferenced claims of crimes that can eventually hurt people, businesses, house value etc. Someone must say the truth about "truth-sayers". NVO (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In other words, you're saying we should keep the article because the site itself is a bad idea? Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * These are your words, not mine. I started with not notable, i.e. the site itself may be deleted uncontroversially. NVO (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but you voted to keep, yet nothing in your comment addresses why it should be kept, indeed you even admitted it was non-notable. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- RayAYang (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason I created the stub in the first place, was that I came to Wikipedia to learn more, found nothing, and started the page hoping it would be expanded on by others. —MJBurrage(T•C) 04:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Despite being Brazilian in origin, the BBC found it notable enough to cover for the UK and NPR found it notable enough to air the BBC interviews in the US. That is good enough for me, and should be good enough for Wikipedia.  After that there is still the issue of the articles detail, but that should prompt a call for expansion, not deletion. —MJBurrage(T•C) 20:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Number 1 criterion at WP:WEB says, The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.  Corvus cornix  talk  20:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well "WikiCrimes -BBC" gets over 26,000 hits on Google (most non-English), so it is getting coverage, I just cant read it. I found it particularly notable that Brazilian site got English language coverage in the first place.
 * And how many of those hits are from reliable sources?  Corvus cornix  talk  22:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Guilty of A7 violations. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:50, 16 September 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.