Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiseek (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. Wizardman 18:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikiseek
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable. Original sources now longer valid. Site has been taken down since first AfD discussion (which had very little participation). -- Zim Zala Bim talk  02:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no claim to notability. Never made it big, and now gone --T-rex 15:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability does not expire. If it was notable at the time of the first AfD, it remains notable today. --Eastmain (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that the outcome of that limited discussion was "no consensus", not "keep" -- Zim Zala Bim talk  21:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Soxred  93  13:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep A Google news search finds quite a few mentions and while many are behind pay portals and in other languages some of the article appear to be quite substantial. - Icewedge (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability does not expire. It (marginally, to be sure) made the grade when it was active, so it stays. --Dhartung | Talk 21:24, 21 June 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.