Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erictric.com
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. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Erictric.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Blog site. Previously up for speedy db-web, but does appear to have some notability+sources, so AfD raised to get further opinion.Oscarthecat (talk) 08:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Those sources are no good. Two are from the site itself, and one is a blog. My own search didn't turn up anything any better. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above and the fact that the only contributor to the article has a conflict of interest. --t'shael mindmeld 08:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I searched on Google for this before I CSD A-7d, no hits except to the site, no news or any references. Google is the gold standard for websites! -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 08:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: being 29,515,116th on Alexa's list won't assure this one a spot at Wikipedia. Alexius08 (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe the sources are sufficient. If you disagree, that is fine. Another source has been added. Also, Alexa's statistics are not reliable, they only retrieve information from users with the Alexa toolbar installed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erictric (talk • contribs) 20:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that the sources are not reliable by Wikipedia standards. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This encyclopedia is not so "Free" after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erictric (talk • contribs) 22:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Free as in it doesn't cost any money, not free as in a free-for-all where anything goes. The basic principles are outlined at the five pillars and verifiability is one of them. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only cheering is coming from a user whose name happens to be the same as the website in question. In addition to a lack of sources, I sense a conflict of interest in here.Tyrenon (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do your jobs and remove the content if it is not held up to your almighty standards instead of poking the dead horse with a stick. I can tell you enjoy doing this type of thing, and you do it often. Your reasoning is understood. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.33.97 (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC) — 24.63.33.97 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.