Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Create your own critter

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. MBisanz ^talk 09:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Create your own critter

Non-notable website, sources cited are inappropriate Oscarthecat (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what are considered notable websites? Pachannie (talk)— Pachannie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

See the guideline Notability (web). JohnCD (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced except for a couple of blog entries. GDallimore (Talk) 20:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so blogs are not considered sources? Pachannie (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

They are not reliable sources, because anyone can put anything in a blog. Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." JohnCD (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is what it says under the notability article "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" with the exception of personal blogs, Cuteable.com is not a personal blog, but run by a company called TS Fifteen Ltd. Pachannie (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as SPAM - I'd got this wrong, I thought it was a web-site, it's actually a business selling custom-made soft toys. Apart from notability, this looks to me like advertisement, and we have problems with conflict of interest - proprietor of the business is Annie Snyder, article author is Pachannie (talk · contribs) who is an SPA (no edits on any other subject), on Thisnext.com it is "first recommended by Pachannie". Wikipedia is not for promoting your own business. JohnCD (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how it is a conflict of interest if everything I have listed is a fact. I'll take off the thisnext review, but it was reviewed by another person as well. 204.146.162.32 (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)— 204.146.162.32 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete as soon as possible, please. I must say, I haven't seen more blatant advertising than this on Wikipedia. I hope that the contributor understands the difference between advertising and an encyclopedic article, but I have my doubts. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:WEB. VG ☎ 10:49, 15 October 2008 (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.