Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/"leatherwood online"

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leatherwood Online

Wikipedia is not a web directory. Francs2000 | Talk 00:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. What's up with the quotes? Thatdog 01:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

(Quotes now fixed)

• Delete Hamster Sandwich 02:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 06:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Christy747 07:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable enough to me. The Examiner is allowed so why not this? -- RHaworth 17:05:41, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:N, WP:V.—Encephalon | ^ζ  17:54:53, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
  • Why do you consider this unverifyable? An external link is given. -- RHaworth 12:07:54, 2005-08-21 (UTC)
    • I do not, RHaworth; you are quite right to point out that the existence of Leatherwood Online does seem to be verifiable. However, simply because the existence of something is verifiable does not mean it deserves an entry in an encyclopedia. The concept of notability is often used to determine "encyclopedia-worthiness" on WP; as you can see from the WP:N page, this concept as understood on WP derives a lot from WP:V. Something, such as a newspaper, that is truly notable will likely have multiple secondary sources which an editor wishing to write a scholarly article on the subject may reference. No secondary sources, or a small number of poor quality ones, is a very strong indicator of non-notability. This is not a trivial point, for it lies at the heart of what we all do (or are trying to do) at WP: write articles for an encyclopedia. A good encyclopedia article cannot be written without good secondary sources (and at WP that is an absolute requirement, for primary research is forbidden). Let's take an example. If you wanted to write an article on the New York Times, you will have at your disposal thousands of secondary sources of all kinds, including best-selling books, scholarly articles, monographs, journalism and media studies dissertations, documentaries, editorial commentary, even websites. The Times is a highly notable subject that has been the focus of an immense amount of primary research; hence the great number of secondary sources. Now, I've used the Times as a particularly clear example of a notable newspaper, and do not mean to suggest that every article we write must have an equally prodigious number of sources; however, the requirement for at least some good, reputable sources is clear. What are the secondary sources one may use to write an article on Leatherwood Online?—Encephalon | ^ζ  15:10:08, 2005-08-21 (UTC)
• Keep - Stoph 00:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Dottore So 05:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Print publications are notable, that should rub off on their online spin-offs. --DrTorstenHenning 13:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm.. but not all print publications are notable, are they? I could swear I've seen some proposed criteria somewhere... -- Visviva 05:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or failing that merge into Leatherwood, which however does not exist. -- Visviva 05:27, 25 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.