Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pandorapedia

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. Secret ^account 15:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pandorapedia

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

Non-notable, non-existent site —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't find really anything that would make this notable.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination is not correct in its basic hypothesis - the website indeed does exist. It is as notable as a number of other articles about online encyclopedias that Wikipedia possesses, e.g. this short-lived one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AVATARia (talk • contribs) 22:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. First is that it is not yet existing, it is only on a "test" page. Second, it failed WP:RS where this was supposed to be covered into any news sources, which, we can't find any at least one. Third, it does not attain any notability. Pandorapedia can be considered as another Bulbapedia, that even though Bulbapedia is famous to Pokemon fanatics, it still does not attain any significance to attain spin-out. Most of the time, local wikis or wikis that covers information about a purely small topic comparable to large wikis does not need spin out. Furthermore, as this policy wanted to say about how does a website/wiki to be included in Wikipedia, is that the wiki must (1) be recognized into any printed media, which can be verified through the same newspaper or an online counterpart recognizing, in this case, Pandorapedia; (2) is that it has significant trivial coverage. The first website provided in the external links section is a test page for Pandorapedia, the second one is not yet existing. How come that it has a mentioning that it was "launched" December 9, 2009, if it is only on a temporary domain? We cannot assure that information is reliable, we can't verify that because there aren't news coverage. Finally, (3) the page about Pandorapedia seems to be premature, this also says that it must gain any recognition or an award from an organization or publication. In any of the three cases I mentioned above, the article failed all of them, especially that it failed one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, the RS.--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 13:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JL 09. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like a case of WP:CRYSTAL since it is still in testing. I think JL brings up a good point about verifiability. Most of the stuff I am finding on it would not, in my opinion, qualify as a reliable source. Therefore, I do not feel that the subject merits inclusion at this time. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:16, 16 December 2009 (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.