Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suite101.com (3rd nomination)

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 Keep. Thanks for the clean up LK ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suite101.com

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

Reads like an ad... is this site notable? Vistro (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, it does indeed read like an advertisement. JIP | Talk 06:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article has been deleted twice at AFD, once in 2006 and again in 2009 (as a G4 recreation). This text, for good or ill, appears to be different enough from the deleted version to warrant a second look (as opposed to just speedying it again). That said, it feels awfully promotional. G11, maybe, but not G4. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To answer Vistro, the site has been around for 13 years, was started by writers, is Canada's largest content site, ahead of CBC.ca. As for the text being different, it is indeed, this time with references to recent media articles about the site. If seemingly promotional, this is unintentional, as it is following the tone and format of other Wikipedia articles for similar writing sites such as eHow.com and Helium.com. Hopefully this is helpful context from the contributor.--MJohn777 (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any significant coverage of this website in third-party reliable sources. There are a lot of hits on google from the website itself but nothing discussing it. There have also been a number of recent press releases put out by the website (an advertising campaign, perhaps?), but again there is little in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Salting may be an option if this is deleted once more. Them From Space 22:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article spam --Cybercobra (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep External sources show that the site is notable. See for example, these articles about the site. [1] [2] [3] These articles are from external reliable sources and extensively discuss the site. Also, this search on google news brings up multiple news articles about the site. If the current article is too promotional, it should be fixed, not deleted. --LK (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lawrencekhoo. Your work on the article has done a lot to clean up the "ad" feel of the article, IMO. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2010 (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.