Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flights With Friends
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. J04n(talk page) 16:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Flights With Friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article about a website appears to be non-notable in reliable sources to indicate significant coverage. I did, however, find a fairly reliable source, see here but that's not enough; most other sources are self-published. TBrandley (what's up) 20:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources cited in the article include the TNooz one you mentioned and Techcrunch. The only other source is the homepage where the 150 websites number comes from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilanacal (talk • contribs) 20:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think speedy deletion is appropriate, and I've nominated it as such. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so, in this case. The criteria you provided states it does not make an assertion of importance. Although it may be non-notable, it does actually so continuing this debate seems appropriate. TBrandley (what's up) 20:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any credible claim of importance. You are free to remove the template, of course--or you can see what the next available admin thinks. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- After reviewing the guidelines I edited the article to show importance.Ilanacal
- I don't see any credible claim of importance. You are free to remove the template, of course--or you can see what the next available admin thinks. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so, in this case. The criteria you provided states it does not make an assertion of importance. Although it may be non-notable, it does actually so continuing this debate seems appropriate. TBrandley (what's up) 20:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, for now. The sources exist, but they seem merely to announce the creation of a new company. Whether the company will become notable, or sink without a trace, has yet to be determined. Let's check back in a year and see if any articles have been written other than those that acknowledge the beginning of the company. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I speedied and closed here, but have restored and reopened by request of the nominator. I speedied because I could, like Drmies, see no credible assertion of significance. I still can't in 10 pages of ghits. Peridon (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, for now this article is simply WP:SPAM and promotional. Per FisherQueen, maybe the company will become notable in six months to a year. - ʈucoxn\talk 05:38, 16 February 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.