Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matmice (second nomination)

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 keep. Yuser31415 00:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matmice

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

nn website (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matmice) Xokien 07:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. The creator of this article, Eedo Bee, is currently blocked for a separate matter. He is therefore unable to improve the article or contribute to this discussion. WJBscribe 07:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - the claim to have 1.6 million members constitutes an assertion of notability, but it needs to be backed up by reliable sources. More evidence of non-trivial independent coverage also needed (per WP:WEB). I would vote Weak Delete, but the author deserves the chance to improve this article (per the comment above) and to add sources to verify the claims. Walton monarchist89 11:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless reliable sources are provided to show how this meets our criteria for notability of web sites. The author's block has expired so he is able to improve the article. Note also this could be speedied under WP:CSD:G4 since it is reposted material previously deleted by an AfD. Gwernol 15:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Changed to Keep following Eedo Bee's sourcing of the article. It does need improvement but now meets WP:WEB. Gwernol 13:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep as the reasons for putting up for deletion were due to a misunderstanding of wikipedia policy, that is, if an article lacks sufficient reason to be notable, then it would require improvement. The article is of notability, both relevant and now up to date, make the article one that is of value to wikipedia and should be kept. While the article could do with a bit of work, I have since improved it and added many cources verfying its notability. Eedo Bee 12:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    • FYI, we do delete articles that are not notable, so the original nomination was quite proper and not a misunderstanding of policy. Thanks for finding the additional references that show the article's notability. Gwernol 13:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - external links clearly show notability. I do wish, however, that the article was expanded, and the external links used as footnotes, per WP:V. Jeffpw 16:07, 11 February 2007 (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.