Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BluejackQ (2nd nomination)

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 - default to keep. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BluejackQ

Article isn't notable per WP:WEB, all news articles are significantly out of date on the media page. Also the forum on the site themself have had no new posts in the last 5 days (as of this writing) which leads me to believe that the site itself is also dead. Additionally, there has been one previous AfD and several attempts to prod this page, here and here ShakataGaNai (talk) 07:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete the article had a lucky escape last time, surviving mainly upon claims that whilst it was marginal, it was an up and coming site. In fact it seems to be near dead, and never achieved any great notability. Mayalld (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep WP:WEB says nothing at all about how active a website must be to be notable. Nor does it say anything about when news articles were written, only that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." which this website has. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct. But take a look through some of those links on their media page. A number of those links are duplicates (the print copy of the online edition, the radio/tv version of the print edition, etc), and a few are to non-reliable groups ex: "weblog diffusion index". Also 5 of the websites in the "Website" section alone goto 404's, or otherwise invalid links. --ShakataGaNai (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - As I've noted in the original AfD commentary - along with the fact that I simply don't think this site was noteable outside of its tiny little nitch and for a short period of time. What it boils down to is that within a few years of this site shutting down - no one will be looking for the article. The article is also basically an orphan (only 2 links). --ShakataGaNai (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Notability is not temporary. They may have been a splash in the pan, but looking over the Google News hits for the term suggests that it meets the requirements of WP:N. Burzmali (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: I agree that it may have been something before. For historical reasons, it has notability. Article needs stregthening, for sure. --Revanche (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2008 (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.