Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omniglot
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 Delete -- we need actual sources, not just a count of Ghits. NawlinWiki 19:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Omniglot
This is a useful and cool website, but I don't see that it meets WP:WEB. I can't find non-trivial media coverage. The article cites only one review of the site, hosted at Bowdoin College, which seems to be a reprint of material from the American Library Association newsletter. The site has no indication of major awards. Therefore, even though I like the site, I suspect that it doesn't meet our notability guidelines. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per a very thoughtful nom. Alexa rank is about 29,000. Shalom Hello 22:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - no serious assertion of notability. Terraxos 01:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. A Google search turned up more than 300,000 hits. While the article doesn't say a great deal about the site, it can be improved. Lumturo 02:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Since "omniglot" is an English word used independently of the website, I have to doubt that all 300,000 of those hits are relevant here. However, if some of them are from reliable sources, they would be useful. I did a Google search before starting this AfD (as well as a Lexis-Nexis search, and a Google Scholar search), and didn't come up with useful sources. It's entirely possible that I missed something, though, so if anyone can find some independent, non-trivial coverage of the website, please let us know. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Search hits mean extremely little. I agree with Akhilleus: insignificant mentions in reliable sources: we can't keep this. Mangojuicetalk 18:45, 12 July 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.