Talk:Exit Mundi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Exit Mundi article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article was nominated for deletion on April 15, 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This article is poorly written and relies on a preponderance of verbatim text from the subject website, but I still feel (edited) it could be an important, worthwhile entry. ka1iban 15:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prod (copied here from User:Orangemike's talk page)

I saw you proded the article. Do you think it does not meet WP:WEB. Three references are present which describe the subject in quite detail. Otolemur crassicaudatus

The three references include a one-paragraph mention in a six-year-old online column about end-of-the-world websites; a brief description in a reporter's blog/column about quirky websites; and a link I can't get to open. These do not constitute significant coverage. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree the refs don't establish notability, which is why I had tagged it for improved references. Per a disucssion on my/OC's talk page, he doesn't believe it needs more refs or that stubs need refs so I let it go. Without more, improved sources to determine notability, I agree with Orange Mike. FWIW, RS covergae appears very limited. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec to Orangemike) Thanks for explaining the "significant coverage" that "sources address the subject directly in detail". My understanding of WP:WEB probably then inaccurate since I missed this fact. I only saw this article while patrolling the website category and found it interesting. But now I am agree with Orangemike. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Making a comment here at the request of Otolemur since I deproded the article. I deproded while PROD patrolling because the article had previously been proded and disputed. As for the issue of notability, I don't believe the article in itself currently establishes notability. It does, however, give indications of possible notability. I agree with ka1iban above that the article could possibly be rescued through a rewrite and addition of sources. Redfarmer (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is the case, I myself will AfD it on behalf of User:Orangemike. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that it could possible be rescued, however I think the issue at large is that the three sources included are the only ones anyone has been able to find TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)