Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amapedia

From 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 no consensus. Daniel Bryant 02:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amapedia

Amapedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

40 unique Googles, none of which appear to be non-trivial external sources. No sources cited. Possible smerge to Amazon, but probably better to wait until it's out of beta. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete - only source cited is Amapedia itself; no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to establish notability per WP:WEB. Delete unless sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton Vivat Regina! 13:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - no references, and reads similar to advertisements. --Sigma 7 14:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Guy is right on - it fails WP:WEB. YechielMan 16:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as inevitable. This does, I admit, fail WP:WEB, but it is surely only a matter of weeks or months before an amazon-run project meets that criteria. Yes, to make that argument smacks of WP:CRYSTALballism. But if we delete this now, it's going to reappear on a weekly basis until it finally sticks. Surely we could invoke WP:IAR to save ourselves the trouble. Let's just allow this article to grow incrementally with the website. semper fictilis 18:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, found at least one instance of reliable media coverage at money.cnn.com, and considering it is part of the hugely popular Amazon.com, its notability is likely going to increase dramatically. — Krimpet (talk/review)
  • Keep. The site's been covered on CNN Money, O'Reilly Radar, LifeHacker, WebProNews, and around 340 blogs. These links and its place within Amazon.Com sufficiently justify an entry here. Also, where are you getting the "40 unique Googles" claim? Google reports 212,000 pages for the query "amapedia -site:amazon.com" Rcade
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.