Talk:BluejackQ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 27 Sept 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

[edit] Should not be deleted

I have removed the deletion tag. I'm not sure if that was the right thing to do so put it back if it wasnt.

From WP:WEB:

Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion excludes:

  • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
  • Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
  • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.

http://www.bluejackq.com/media-links.shtml. Including the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3237755.stm & http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3642627.stm which is an interview with the site's creator.) Mahahahaneapneap 20:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


Am I mistaken in noticing that not one of those citations is less than two years old? As if there was some brief interest in the site, but none since. Fan-1967 20:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is mad! This article is DAYS old! Delete this and ill hang myself - Adamlonsdale (OF BJQ)

Adam - The article has been put up for deletion because the subject is not considered notable enough for an article. If you want to oppose the deletion, you need to register an account and go to [1] and give a reason. Mahahahaneapneap 17:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BluejackAddicts

Would you please stop vandalising this article. It is really immature, and not in the spirit of Wikipedia.

If your really that bothered about the article, why not create your own article?

Mike 19:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The bluejackaddicts website definitely isn't notable enough for an article. It is not even close to satisfying WP:WEB. Mahahahaneapneap 20:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion (again)

203.144.144.163, I'm afraid there's been too little time elapsed since the BluejackQ AfD to consider this an uncontroversial deletion suitable for proposed deletion. It may even be too soon for another AfD, but if you insist, you're welcome to try.

This isn't, on the other hand, to say that the article is squeaky clean. It definitely needs cleanup, with a greater emphasis on the site itself and claims of notability and some citations to some of the sources listed at [2], which allow it to creep in under the bar of WP:WEB, than on what the community is doing this week, which is unencyclopedic. --Scott Wilson 23:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I suspect the Prod nomination wasn't real to begin with. Fans of a certain site that doesn't have an article have been targeting various other articles on sites, the best of which was slapping a {db-web} tag on Yahoo. Based on this IP's edit immediately after the Prod, looks like he was one of them. Fan-1967 23:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • We can suspect, but we ought to assume good faith. I can see their point, too - I'm frankly surprised that BluejackQ has an article - knowing of it from elsewhere and having stumbled across this article by accident yesterday, I thought it would have failed WP:WEB, and it just sneaks in under the bar for me. --Scott Wilson 13:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Regardless. Prod may not be used after an article has already had a contested Prod or an AFD. Once an AFD has concluded, only another AFD may delete the article. Fan-1967 14:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/l/u/Talk%7EBluejackQ_e1eb.html"