Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Lost websites"

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. Courcelles 10:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Lost websites"

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be complete WP:OR, with no references except to the author's own website. No indication that this is important, significant, or notable in any way. And the title is wrong. — Timneu22 · talk 15:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Timneu22. --Nlu (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Timneu22. I am not sure that the topic could be handled in its current form, tho perhaps if a major news organization covered it. Syrthiss (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Timneu22. Yworo (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and facepalm. Comparing defunct websites with lost data to book-burnings? Good grief. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I applaud the author for managing a complete and comprehensive list of the one and only website to be deleted, ever. Ok, seriously, a less goofy and more encyclopedic treatment of this is at link rot. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the idea of an article on notable but now abandoned and deleted websites has some merit, but this article is not it, and can be safely deleted. the one example given is out of our purview as the only references are in hungarian. if a partisan editor wants to rail about this deletion, they need to try to see if the hungarian wp can find enough notability for it to exist as an article with a more specific focus, ie the specific website "lost". I love the long list of see alsos. Wake up, world, this is obviously the second holocaust:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having the only references in a non-English language is no reason to declare something non-notable or cause for deletion. However it is another straw on the camel's back in this case, I suppose. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a non-notable term and original research. The topic that the term describes may be notable, but not, as far as I can see, under this name. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is borderline G10, with the purpose of the article to be attacking "Matáv (Today: T-Com)", who deleted his site. — Timneu22 · talk 10:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for more policies than I have letters in my alphabet. Let's say per nom. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2010 (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.