Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craftsuprint

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Craftsuprint

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

The article fails to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG; non-notable topic. TBr and ley 06:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this during NPP and I honestly didn't know what to do with it. I figured I'd wait a few hours to see if the author(s) were going to clean it up or provide some actual references, but no dice. As far as I can tell this is the main assertion to notability, but I can't make a call as to whether that source is reliable or not. §FreeRangeFrog 06:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. The only claim to notability is the top50crafters website which imo is not a reliable source for many reasons, the first of which is it looks strongly like a cheap website made with a site such as webs.com etc., and secondly it seems to allow anyone to be able to add whatever they want as long as they're the owner of the business, which makes it fail reliability again. Thusly, I have to say delete on all fronts. gwickwire | Leave a message 20:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The top 50 crafters website is based on traffic and unique vistors to a website, which is why I included it and thought it notable. Please give guidance on what would be notable on UK web based company as all references are web based? I also have no idea why this should be included in television or games related discussions as it is neither? Lisabagz (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG; non-notable subject, irredeemable blatant advertising.Theroadislong (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment blatant advertising? I have no interest in advertising, I wrote it as a timeline of events. This website was the first of its kind and has launched digital crafting as a whole; I thought it was worthy of an article because of this. I would appreciate any help in editing it so that it is not deemed to be advertising as this was not the intention. I am not experienced in wiki language, so any guidance or assistance would be appreciated. Lisabagz (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:42, 25 November 2012 (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.