Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neowin

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 of the debate was Speedy keep as >2m ghits blows away the allegation of "non-notable". Still needs cleaning. Just zis Guy you know? 00:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neowin

Yet another tech-blog. Vanity, Non-notable. No propper content, just external sites linking/indexing. Rick Browser 15:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep no proper content, spam, blah, blah, but still scores 2m ghits. I just wish the fans of websites woudl put their minds into documenting things that can't trivially be found on Google. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, nota directory of websites. Just zis Guy you know? 16:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Highly notable site. Please do the requisite google search and alexa query before listing highly notable sites on AfD. --BWD ^(talk) 16:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above and meeting WP:WEB, per this cursory glance there are 10 legitimate news mentions of NeoWin in just the past 30 days [1], suggesting plenty of reliable information could be dug up on it. --W.marsh 16:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Quite notable. There's hardly any point in keeping this debate open. — Adrian Lamo ·· 20:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There actually is quite a bit of "proper content" regarding this page and the history of such. I see no evidence of "vanity" in use either here- the site creators don't seem to be involved in the page edits at all. Daniel Davis 21:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is pretty notable website, and this isn't vanity. Traffic rank 5089. -- Mithent 21:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely notable, though phrasing in article intro could be improved. ProhibitOnions 22:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --AaronS 22:46, 12 March 2006 (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.