Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AOL Answers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- AOL Answers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparently fails WP:WEB (trivial sources found), article is largely original research and essay-ish. [CharlieEchoTango] 06:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only third-party sources we could really find were an article from TechCrunch and a short piece by BusinessInsider. Despite being part of AOL, I agree it fails WP:WEB.[citation needed] – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 06:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify for the IP who added the citation needed tag:
- The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. I already stated that the only two good independent sources that I found were the TechCrunch article and the short BusinessInsider article. Google News didn't return anything.
- The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. If you find one, let me know. However, I've seen no mention of one and it seems unlikely that it would.
- The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.). I've also seen no evidence of this.
- I hope this clears things up for you. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 07:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WEB[citation needed] --Guerillero | My Talk 06:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A search for Yedda+AOL turns up considerably more: more than 100 hits at Google News[1], including a number of articles about AOL's 2007 purchase of the Israeli company that originally developed this, e.g.[2][3][4][5]--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A trivial service until proven otherwise. Shii (tock) 13:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete notability questionable at best, topped off with a nasty little POV rant about how it isn't as good as it used to be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Something to think about They are mentioned in published books and look at how many hits it brought back. What else do you look for? --Let Us Update Wikipedia: Dusty Articles 08:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Not really sure that'll fly. One of the books has a short section mentioning yedda, whereas the others all seem to be either mistaken results or brief mentions of the link. The majority of the Google hits seem to be either primary source stuff (from AOL/Yedda/etc.), or brief mentions in other things. The sheer number of Google Book or Google hits can't really be taken as evidence of notability. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 15:35, 31 January 2011 (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.