This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2010 October 18. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Atmoz ( talk) 20:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Website does not seem to satisfy WP:WEB. The most significant coverage it's received is from a WorldNetDaily article, a highly partisan source, and even that is arguably trivial since it only summarizes some content from the website. The other sources in the article are either passing mentions, indexes of website rankings, lists of banned websites, or merely self-references. A request for additional reliable sources covering the website has been in the article since 2007. Oore ( talk) 20:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC) reply
This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2010 October 18. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Atmoz ( talk) 20:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Website does not seem to satisfy WP:WEB. The most significant coverage it's received is from a WorldNetDaily article, a highly partisan source, and even that is arguably trivial since it only summarizes some content from the website. The other sources in the article are either passing mentions, indexes of website rankings, lists of banned websites, or merely self-references. A request for additional reliable sources covering the website has been in the article since 2007. Oore ( talk) 20:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC) reply