Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disqus
Source: 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 per lack of multiple reliable sources. Shereth 21:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Disqus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Not (yet) that notable a company. Biruitorul Talk 18:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 00:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not familiar experienced enough with notability to give this an up-or-down vote, but to help make a decision on this, I'll point out that TV Newser uses Disqus for its comments. That's a major, notable blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishyfred (talk • contribs) 18:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:CORP and WP:RS. Don't know for sure, but probably fails WP:WEB. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The coverage is non-trivial: The entire article is about this subject. Also it is a reliable source. On the other hand, it is one reliable source, and I haven't found any other sourcing. But then again, it may be out there. We have one source that fully passes WP:RS, as it is an independent publication with editorial control. With that, it is certainly verifiable. Notability is a bit more concerning, but I do believe taht it grazes by. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; one non-trivial source, but in a highly specific publication, and most importantly only one. We really need multiple sources to comfortably be able to cover this. This may be possible, but I didn't find any more and neither did Martijn... and I feel uncomfortable with the example set by articles on products that don't clearly show their notability, I think it encourages more spam. Mangojuicetalk 14:15, 17 July 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.