Talk:Kafenio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I strongly disagree with the deletion, the data all comes from Alf B. Meier and research has been conducted by e-mail as almost all information, excepting for three articles in Writers Digest and one in Europe, is only available on the net, which is not very constant because pages get deleted, removed or content provider just disappear, which could make it useless for research a few years down the road.
If you need on-line sources go to google and enter Kafenio + KAFENIOCOM.COM and you will find over 100.
Rough 22:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stubbed down
The article has been stubbed to what is easily proven on the web, about a dozen web-sites that still show up in search engines do not exists anymore and about half the sources cited don't look like they been updated in years, which means that it is only a question of time before they are shut down and we are back at the same point as before reducing it.
Rough 00:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] AfD Debate
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on November 19 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
--Robdurbar 17:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Problems
- "... a layout that corresponded to the needs of the medium it was published in (Internet) and the browsers it was viewed on, ..." What does that mean?
- Far too many external links under Sources. An article of this size should have 1 or 2, to provide citations only. No need to list every url that mentions the subject
- At least some of the external links are broken or don't mention Kafenio - all need to be checked
- Statistics section is entirely unencyclopaedic and should go. Reads like vanity.
- "...the one the staff was most proud of was..." is POV and should go also.
- "...pull the plug..." is unencyclopaedic language
Considering that this is an article presumably written by a professional writer, it's very ordinary. — Moondyne 14:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
