Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurohobby

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 00:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eurohobby

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

Fails WP:GNG. Most of the references are sections of the eurohobby website, and the one that isn't is extremely trivial-eurohobby isn't even mentioned by name, just linked. A google search for eurohobby gives tons of pages on the eurohobby website, and a few unrelated companies, but no third-party independent sources. Google news gives no hits. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I call this double standards - I came across lot of articles on wikipedia related to websites that do not have more than few lines and somehow they are still there here you have some examples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GazoPa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Wools http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubestat

that was just to list some believe me there are tons eurohobby article is already by far better than most of those articles thus why i call the deletion of this page as double standard Eurohobby is the only portal for euro coins (numismatics) that you can find on the web that is in english. Also one of the sources is the Wall Street Journal - I better have one source and very credible than 100 that make non-sense. In case you want non-sense I can add tons of references to euroHOBBY.

eurohobby also have 2000 members that voluntarily joined the website - that also indicates credibility

euroHOBBY is not that linked as this is a niche topic but it doesnt make it less important--Melitikus (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, WP:OSE is not a valid reason to keep a page. Each page must be considered on its own merits. Also, in an article about a website, links to that same website aren't considered reliable sources. The Wall Street Journal is usually a reliable source, but the WSJ article only mentions euroHOBBY without establishing notability. One last thing: my google search for sources was very thorough. I looked all the way to page 20 without finding any reliable, third-party sources. Howicus (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources. The WSJ article is a blog peice where eurohobby isn't even mentioned by name, but rather jsut exists as a hyperlink. That is a a far cry from the significant coverage needed to meet inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2013 (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.