Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SizzleLayouts.net

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 13:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SizzleLayouts.net

Really new site with no Alexa rank. Obviously fails WP:WEB. Currently, at http://sizzlelayouts.net we can see only code. Jacek Kendysz 22:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP Hello. The site's "code" problem is fixed and will be consistantly updated weekly. Yes, it did just recently open and this is why it is not super popular yet. Word has just begun to spread and more and more people periodicly have been visiting the site. Please leave this page open for at least 1 more month before deletion. I beleive the site will be much more popular by then. Best Regards To all -Site Owner Jordan Irwin 07:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Viridae^Talk 23:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Very obvious delete With no disrespect to the site's owner, please consult WP:WEB and WP:N. The site opened yesterday, and, unsurprisingly, is non-notable. A Google search of "SizzleLayouts" brings up 4 pages on Yahoo! Answers and nothing else. -- Kicking222 23:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ... discospinster _talk 23:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Pinkstarmaci 05:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Definite Keep This site seems as if it will become more popular, give it time. Me 11:57 August 6, 2006 (UTC)

• Note:Forged signature. Vote actually entered by User:Aries green monkey, who identifies himself above as Jordan Irwin, the site owner. Vote stricken. -- Fan-1967 01:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. WP consensus is very clear, the website is to become notable before it can be included in WP. Websites, like any person, are born non-notable. hateless 00:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Hateless. Wikipedia is not for promoting new sites, but for documenting sites which have already become notable. Fan-1967 00:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Don't see why this is being relisted - looks like an obvious delete close. Dlyons493 Talk 02:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I suppose it is better to be sure, but this was an obvious delete from the get go. Wikipedia is not free advertising. Resolute 04:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pretty obvious, not much else left to say digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 14:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Martinp23 14:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons above--Peephole 14:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per above. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 17:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete way too non-notable -- Whpq 20:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, fails WP:WEB, no WP:V indicating any sort of notability, looks like WP:SPAM. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. NCurse _work 21:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spam for a non-notable website. Shouldn't have been relisted, there was consensus. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam promotion Macktheknifeau 06:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not support notability. It reads like an ad. Still no Alexa. Sorry, Wikipedia is not a collection of information about sites whose owner hopes for much more popularity. 15 google hits including Wikipedia and Myspace. Fails WP:WEB. And vote forgery strains my WP:AGF to the point of saying, "I don't like Spam. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 07:25, 15 August 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.