Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Short-Media

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. - Mailer Diablo 13:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Short-Media

No reliable sources, Google test (which is fairly reliable for internet subjects) revealed only 17 unique hits, and still no reliable sources for verification; no indication that it has attracted enough attention to be able to write about it in an encyclopedic fashion, using a neutral point of view. Captainktainer * Talk 06:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope others will add to the article so that it becomes notable. Short-Media is small in comparison to sites like AnandTech and [H]ard|OCP, but I don't think that alone should preclude it from having an entry in Wikipedia. Racantrell 07:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I remember this, or more specifically I remember Icrontic being hacked and Short-media replacing it. I don't think that counts as notability though, and nor does an Alexa traffic rank of 33,000.[1] Both Anandtech and [H]ardOCP are much higher, while their participation in F@H is irrelevant. Allowing this would, I fear, set the notability bar too low for techie websites. --DeLarge 10:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No claim of encyclopedic notability asserted. Fails WP:WEB. Wikipedia is not a website directory Bwithh 16:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The evidence given above persuades me that this company lacks notability, by web standards. Web data plus media coverage is all we have to go on for web-type companies. EdJohnston 20:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Not tobe Deleted it is someone else property, only the admin have the right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.186.8.12 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 8 October 2006.
  • Actually, you're completely wrong. The people who contributed to the article released their contributions under the GFDL, which means that while they still hold copyright, we can do pretty much whatever we like with their contributions as long as we credit them and preserve the article history. While only admins have the power to delete the entire article, we, the Wikipedia community, are expected to comment on Articles for Deletion and say whether or not (and why) we think an article should be deleted. Captainktainer * Talk 18:31, 9 October 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.