Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Three Rs (Website)

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, since the lack of in depth coverage by reliable sources has not been overcome. Tikiwont (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Three Rs (Website)

The Three Rs (Website) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable website that fails WP:RS. The references given are merely from other non-notable websites. The article was created by two of the guys who blog at the site [1]. If that wasn't enough, they then had the gall to use the article to link to their own Wikipedia user pages [2]. What's next? I guess they'll be showing up here soon to tell us how notable they are. Qworty (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep: The sites given are notable. Sites such as Lostpedia (During its deletion nomination) and Floo Network have survived with much less cites then Three Rs. And going by the above nominators logic the article for ABC should also be deleted. --   Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all  10:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Dee4leeds convinced me. iMatthew 2008 11:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Anyone else think it's hilarious that Dee4leeds cites a deleted article as having "survived" in support of keeping this one? Richard75 (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: By suggesting the deletion of this article, then you no doubt also call into question the ability for other articles citing ABC or Future Plc. (PC Gamer) as righteous sources - most likely undermining the safety of another 100 articles on Wikipedia. Perhaps if this article was about just the single co.uk site - I would agree. Yet it encompasses all of those within the network - remaining modest and saving space. Richard; you have a damn strange sense of humour. Melaisis (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment on COI: Dee4leeds and Melaisis wrote the article. The article is about a blog where Dee4leeds and Melaisis are two of the main contributors. The article not only mentions Dee4leeds and Melaisis, but links to their Wikipedia user pages. Then, when the article is nominated for deletion, the only KEEP votes thus far come from--ta-da--Dee4leeds and Melaisis. This should be archived as a tutorial example of WP:COI. Qworty (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh come on, this is hardly sock puppetry. I fail to see, despite you bringing it up twice now, Q, the apparent 'fact' that we link to our Wikipedia pages in the article. Yet, I fail to see where. Still, if the masses decide to catalogue us for infamy despite a number of fully verifiable sources, then so be it. Melaisis (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, since you're asking, I'll be even more precise. I never accused either of you of being a sock. I said that what you were doing was WP:COI. And I wasn't the first to notice this--the article was intially tagged by our COI bot. As for linking to Wikipedia user pages, this recent version [3] clearly shows that Dee4leeds, in the "Writers" section, used the article to link to his user page as well as yours. After the VfD nomination, Richard75 dewikified your user names [4] because, as he put it in his edit summary, "NOT appropriate to link a Wikipedia article to somebody's userpage!" Of course, you guys already know all about this edit history, so you're stretching good faith here. Fortunately, the edit history gives us the full story. Qworty (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: The page no longer links to our wikipedia userpages and is well cited so the decision should be to keep. And reguarding Floo Network it was deleted after the comment without a deletion nomination so if anything shows the injustice of this website. --   Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all  09:27, 25 March 2008 (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.