Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophomore Conspiracy

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 Delete. The Land 11:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sophomore Conspiracy

A long-running geocities page with a name with zero google hits. I'm really sorry guys, I have to ask you to come back when your site is verifiable.-- Perfecto 02:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB --Perfecto 02:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails to meet WP:WEB criteria. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Isotope23 18:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I think it meets WP:V, but it definitely fails to meet WP:WEB.--M@rēino 19:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • How do you say that, Mareino? Do you have reliable sources? --Perfecto 19:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes. To quote WP:RS, "A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website." Since Sophomore Conspiracy only makes very limited claims, those claims can be verified simply by looking at the Geocities website. The problem as I see it, again, is that it is not a WP:WEB notable website. Non-notable is reason enough to delete an article. --M@rēino 19:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 20:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable is all that matters. --Aaron 22:49, 31 January 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.