Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amie Street (2nd)

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 after sources provided. Yomangani^talk 10:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amie Street

nn website. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amie Street) Sizuxng 06:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as repost/unremarkable webcontent (tagged), else delete - no evidence provided to meet WP:WEB, unreferenced. MER-C 06:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above, and as advertSkierRMH 10:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - nn. tagged it. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, speedy does not apply. Not claiming to meet WP:WEB is not a speedy deletion criterion. But this doesn't claim to meet WP:WEB, so we should delete it. (Removing speedy tag.) Mangojuice^talk 14:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• How do you mean it doesn't claim to meet WP:WEB? I added some discussion of the articles mentioned below in the actual article, but isn't it implied that if a website is on wikipedia it meets WP:WEB? Why does it have to claim to meet it as well? Seems screwy to me. Paul^C/_T+ 05:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep: Meets WP:WEB for press coverage. Site is sole focus of article in The Press-Enterprise, and this article in The Wall Street Journal. --Howrealisreal 15:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Sources found by Howrealisreal indicate notability. --Oakshade 01:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete per nom. WMMartin 18:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Sources previously noted, as well as others here satisfy the notability requirements at WP:WEB. The article still needs work tho, no doubt. That said, notability is established so there is no reason for the article to be deleted. Paul^C/_T+ 04:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not trying to imply anything, but it seems a bit weird that the nom's only contribution to wikipedia is nominating this article for deletion. I think that should be pointed out. Paul^C/_T+ 05:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable through media coverage linked to above. Sandstein 19:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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.