- 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. Michig ( talk) 06:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- EastEnders Ultra ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Original rationale was While superficially this is a referenced article it seems to be referenced to the subject website itself and to various non-notable web blogs and forums. It does not demonstrate notability of the subject, which is just a fansite. The only RS reference (Metro) barely mentions the subject. It just quotes one of its tweets as an example of, well, something or other. So that is just a passing mention and does not confer notability. Subject fails WP:WEB. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Cannot find anything stating that the website is notable. Appears to be just a fansite.-- 5 albert square ( talk) 01:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The website in question produces original and notable content, including but not limited to exclusive news stories and show cast member interviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ISawYouSeeMe ( talk • contribs) 01:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC) — ISawYouSeeMe ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl oh hello! 06:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl oh hello! 06:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I was the PROD nominator and I see nothing to change my original assessment. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 14:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as a crappy fansite that no one gives a flying toss about. – Davey2010 Talk 19:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Do we have a barnstar for diplomacy? ;-) -- DanielRigal ( talk) 20:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with Davey2010. Joseph2302 ( talk) 01:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
KeepThe site has been referenced better, proving it's notability and reliance by those interested in the subject matter. ISawYouSeeMe ( talk) 03:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand the point of the referencing. Your edits and references do not address the notability of the subject here, which is Eastenders Ultra, not Eastenders itself. Eastenders is notable and already has articles on its main valid topics. Ultra does not seem to be notable as it lacks significant coverage by reliable sources. Passing mentions and a few random links don't count as significant coverage. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 11:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Related question: The author has been adding lots of links to EEU to various articles as references. As EEU does not meet the criteria for a reliable source, should we just remove all of these or is more care required? -- DanielRigal ( talk) 11:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- @ DanielRigal: I just reverted one since it's probably a COI edit, which is not allowed per the ToU to begin with. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:51, 9 April 2015 (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.
- 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. Michig ( talk) 06:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- EastEnders Ultra ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Original rationale was While superficially this is a referenced article it seems to be referenced to the subject website itself and to various non-notable web blogs and forums. It does not demonstrate notability of the subject, which is just a fansite. The only RS reference (Metro) barely mentions the subject. It just quotes one of its tweets as an example of, well, something or other. So that is just a passing mention and does not confer notability. Subject fails WP:WEB. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Cannot find anything stating that the website is notable. Appears to be just a fansite.-- 5 albert square ( talk) 01:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The website in question produces original and notable content, including but not limited to exclusive news stories and show cast member interviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ISawYouSeeMe ( talk • contribs) 01:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC) — ISawYouSeeMe ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl oh hello! 06:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl oh hello! 06:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I was the PROD nominator and I see nothing to change my original assessment. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 14:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as a crappy fansite that no one gives a flying toss about. – Davey2010 Talk 19:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Do we have a barnstar for diplomacy? ;-) -- DanielRigal ( talk) 20:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with Davey2010. Joseph2302 ( talk) 01:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
KeepThe site has been referenced better, proving it's notability and reliance by those interested in the subject matter. ISawYouSeeMe ( talk) 03:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand the point of the referencing. Your edits and references do not address the notability of the subject here, which is Eastenders Ultra, not Eastenders itself. Eastenders is notable and already has articles on its main valid topics. Ultra does not seem to be notable as it lacks significant coverage by reliable sources. Passing mentions and a few random links don't count as significant coverage. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 11:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Related question: The author has been adding lots of links to EEU to various articles as references. As EEU does not meet the criteria for a reliable source, should we just remove all of these or is more care required? -- DanielRigal ( talk) 11:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- @ DanielRigal: I just reverted one since it's probably a COI edit, which is not allowed per the ToU to begin with. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:51, 9 April 2015 (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.