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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Some arguments are a bit weak; more discussion required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep, the sourcing isn't great though as "popex" has been used for other things in the past and due to how long ago the service existed there may be inaccessible sources. A possible alternative to deletion would be to merge and improve the
Celebdaq, which appears to have been an offshoot of Popex. However, as the two co-existed for four years as separate websites, I think keeping separate articles makes more sense.
NemesisAT (
talk)
12:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Celebdaq as an
alternative to deletion. I don't believe there are enough reliable sources, from a cursory search, to write a proper article for Popex beyond a stub-length page. Unfortunately, the sources brought up by jp×g seemed to mostly contain mere passing mentions of the topic. But, it is an important part of Celebdaq's development history from what I can tell, so deletion is not an appropriate course of action.
Haleth (
talk)
00:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete: Really doesn't seem to be significant coverage even with the additional sources that have surfaced as part of this AFD discussion. Merging doesn't make sense to me as the Celebdaq article is about a completely different site that simply licensed the code used for Popex.
DocFreeman24 (
talk)
05:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. The BBC News sources constitute primary sources in this case as they talk about the BBC's own Celebdaq; the Investegate one is a press release. music:)ally looks like blog, not a reliable source. The rest does not constitute significant coverage for Popex. Celebdaq already exists as a separate article.
IceWelder [
✉]
19:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)reply
BBC News regularly covers other parts of the BBC in both a positive and a negative light. I think it's unfair to treat it as a primary source, as the news arm is a different team of people to those who setup Celebdaq.
NemesisAT (
talk)
19:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. If someone created a redirect, I wouldn't contest it, but there is nothing sourced worth merging to the Celebdaq article. czar02:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)reply
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Some arguments are a bit weak; more discussion required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep, the sourcing isn't great though as "popex" has been used for other things in the past and due to how long ago the service existed there may be inaccessible sources. A possible alternative to deletion would be to merge and improve the
Celebdaq, which appears to have been an offshoot of Popex. However, as the two co-existed for four years as separate websites, I think keeping separate articles makes more sense.
NemesisAT (
talk)
12:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Celebdaq as an
alternative to deletion. I don't believe there are enough reliable sources, from a cursory search, to write a proper article for Popex beyond a stub-length page. Unfortunately, the sources brought up by jp×g seemed to mostly contain mere passing mentions of the topic. But, it is an important part of Celebdaq's development history from what I can tell, so deletion is not an appropriate course of action.
Haleth (
talk)
00:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete: Really doesn't seem to be significant coverage even with the additional sources that have surfaced as part of this AFD discussion. Merging doesn't make sense to me as the Celebdaq article is about a completely different site that simply licensed the code used for Popex.
DocFreeman24 (
talk)
05:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. The BBC News sources constitute primary sources in this case as they talk about the BBC's own Celebdaq; the Investegate one is a press release. music:)ally looks like blog, not a reliable source. The rest does not constitute significant coverage for Popex. Celebdaq already exists as a separate article.
IceWelder [
✉]
19:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)reply
BBC News regularly covers other parts of the BBC in both a positive and a negative light. I think it's unfair to treat it as a primary source, as the news arm is a different team of people to those who setup Celebdaq.
NemesisAT (
talk)
19:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. If someone created a redirect, I wouldn't contest it, but there is nothing sourced worth merging to the Celebdaq article. czar02:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)reply
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.