Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World waterfall database
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
- 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. JForget 23:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- World waterfall database (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
article does not meet WP:NOTABILITY RP459 (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete: Spam. Joe Chill (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment : I think the topic of specialized searches came up earlier and I made some comment about merging with a list of that type where notability is marginal. This facility sounds like something interesting to many readers but wiki is not an ad platform and can't do independent/unbiased merit review. I couldn't establish notability- a quick check on fodors.com for example only returned on blog hit. I would suggest requesting the proponents to find notability before deleting. I have a hard time calling this spam if it is what it claims to be- if you believe this is of no value please elaborate. It does seem promotional and I can't find independent notice of this thing. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 00:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong/Speedy Delete - per above comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keystoneridin (talk • contribs) 05:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G11.So tagged. Tim Song (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Promotional material. I think it's snowing, but I could be wrong. Tim Song (talk) 06:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.