Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fotki (2)

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 Delete. — Scientizzle 17:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fotki

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

WP:WEB, previous listing didn't begin to address notability. None of the reasons to keep that were given meet current guidelines. Its been unreferenced for an extensive length of time, which again makes it impossible to establish notability. Crossmr (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, as far as I can see, a non-notable Flickr clone that doesn't meet WP:WEB. Lankiveil (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Fotki predates Flickr. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Fotki is notable, but if, in the past year, nobody has managed to provide references for the testimonials at http://www.fotki.com/us/ , it's ok to nuke this article and let someone else start a new one, with appropriate references. Argyriou (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  Yes its impossible to verify the context or how significant the coverage is of these without links. They do link to the ABC news video, but it appears to be an affiliate (not national news) and the coverage is trivial. Less than 30 seconds, and is really just a brief description of the features on the site.--Crossmr (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Here's some of the coverage from their homepage Winner of Webware100, SFGate, Washington post, BusinessWeek BOTW 06. -- pb30<talk> 06:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  Which is trivial coverage at best.. any evidence that the webware award is notable? a simple link to it on the business week one..no real explanation of placing. washington post is trivial coverage per WP:WEB simply a description of the service, and the sfgate certainly doesn't qualify as significant coverage either. if thats all there is to offer, it does nothing to qualify here unless webware can be demonstrated to be a notable and major award.--Crossmr (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, unquestionably. Deb (talk) 21:52, 13 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.