Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheek’d
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 speedy keep. Nominator banned, only delete !vote struck. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheek’d (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional, vanity, advert, cruft, non notable and spammish. Frank Fascarelli (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for web sites.Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep a Google news search shows that it appears to meet the General Notability Guideline with significant coverage. The New York Times goes in depth. New York Daily News has more than a brief mention. Same with Fox.Cptnono (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And Honolulu Weekly and Die Zeit (a German Weekly).Cptnono (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "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." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Frank Fascarelli is the newest incarnation of banned editor User:Torkmann. His signature style is to create a new account because we have not banned his IP address and nominate articles for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've added in the references given here and one other. As others have stated, notability is established from the numerous coverage in reliable sources. SilverserenC 04:20, 15 August 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.