Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WordswithMeaning!


 * 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. Exactly why this became a magnet for IP sockpuppets, I have no idea. The Bushranger One ping only 00:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

WordswithMeaning!

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Superficial impressive article - actually relies on primary sources. An examination of google and other research tools indicates to me that there is no significant coverage for this site. Cameron Scott (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * KEEP: Plenty of coverage in Australia, used as source by newspapers, you cannot base your accusation on Google ranks, a simple search of people like Bill Cooper reveals the site within first page --John25477 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

— John25477 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * do you have any connection with the article subject? LibStar (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * KEEP - Plenty of offline coverage, as mentioned in articl site had forums of 400,000+ and yes more online sources needed, but site is reliable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.242.80 (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

— 110.33.242.80 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — 58.106.203.179 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — 110.33.235.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete WP:ADVERT. fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * KEEP Come on it is a notable Australian site alongside Whirlpool and others, I visited the page to find out about it, Wikipedia always insists on taking these sites down just because the dickwad Americans don't know of it, then it mustn't be relevant far out!!! --58.106.203.179 (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * KEEP : I would suggest we keep it, Notable, featured on local papers in Georgia, had plenty of controversy when it came to the 9/11 stuff and overall I think that yes, we should add better sources to the article but I wouldn't say that this article looks like an advertisement and I wouldn't consider this a site that isn't known by many -- oh and yes I am American you racist (above)
 * KEEP IT - Looks fine the way it is, it's definitely not against WP:GNG in any way, because it has had coverage in the past and it's definitely up there in the independent news sites, leave it--110.33.235.193 (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Article lacks reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha Quadrant    talk    20:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

— 58.106.202.23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * KEEP - I think in terms of media coverage, popularity and site rank that it reaches the minimums required to reachnotability guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.202.23 (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

— 110.33.227.161 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * KEEP - definitely suitable, all sources are inbound but many offline sources can be added, like the other users, I was searching Wikipedia for the site and found the info on it here so yeah --110.33.227.161 (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And you all edit from the same IP range! What a concidence! --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And by your silliness here you are destroying any credibility that WordswithMeaning! might have had (although, for me, the exclamation mark already precludes any credibility for a site that claims to be a reaction to the trivialisation of news media). Phil Bridger (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no relation to the site, that page doesn't actually have any content on it, There is no conflict of interest, I was searching the site on wikipedia and found that the page had not been created, pretty sure a site having an exclamation mark in its title is not a debatable issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.224.250 (talk • contribs).


 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Lamb Chop would not be amused by the !voting in this AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep so that reliable sources can be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.226.44 (talk)
 * Note disruptive IPs have been blocked. LibStar (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2011 (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.