Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Oolone


 * how many sources are required? The guidelines read as if one was sufficient Jonquilljones (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The guideline requires "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The general guidelines say they require 'at least one secondary source?!' Jonquilljones (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The immediately following point says "We require multiple sources ..." - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Who makes the ultimate decision over which contradicting guideline to adhere to then? Jonquilljones (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see nowhere where the guideline says only one source is enough. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any conradiction, either. The "We require the existence of at least one secondary source" part explains why an article with zero reliable sources is not to be included. The following one explains why one source is not sufficient. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This search engine looks to be making an impact on education, is that not enough to be relevant?Lbyrne82 (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC) — Lbyrne82 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * "Making an impact" is totally subjective. I made an impact on education by graduating at age 15 despite having only a B- average. Am I notable? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems that most of the guidelines are subjective. As i said, who's the arbitrator who can make a decision over which conflicting guideline to follow? Can he/she make a decision please? Jonquilljones (talk) 07:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG is hard and fast, and supercedes any other notability criterion. It says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article…" There is one source with significant coverage, but I still think it's too soon yet. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You thinking it's 'too soon' is subjective too. I think the guidelines need to be clearer, but this article seems to satisfy the GNG. How does this discussion come to a conclusion? Jonquilljones (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It'll stay open at least seven days and be closed according to the consensus of the other participants. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 09:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Jonquilljones (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Would just like to make a conclusion: TenPoundHammer has agreed that the one source mentioned is significant coverage. The 'too soon' page implies that if a topic has no significant coverage it is considered 'too soon'. This does not apply to this article. So if the GNG supercedes other guidelines, the article should not be deleted. The blog references also show that the subject has made a contribution to education, as lbyrne82 kindly pointed out.

Please see the second paragraph under the heading: 'no inherent notability' on guideline.i think both points it raises apply here. Jonquilljones (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * With regards to TheNextWeb source, I'd say that the article largely depends on the website itself and its founders; I don't think it constitutes non-trivial third-party coverage. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)