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. I'm sorry Boucetta but the consensus here is that Techyv does not yet meet WP:WEB. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Techyv[edit]

Techyv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website. PROD was contested by the author without comment. Borderline A7, I would support a speedy if there is consensus for it here. VQuakr (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Information in lead suggests it is not a notable website (ex. alexa ranking > 100,000) MadCow257 (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I wrote in the first place invalid references. Would you please recheck the references. Boucetta (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC) — Boucetta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I had another look at the links in the article, and none of them are secondary sources that go beyond a trivial listing of the web site. VQuakr (talk) 05:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the neatstat.com also a non reliable reference ? Boucetta (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added new references. You are invited to check their reliability. Boucetta (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete and nuke from orbit to be sure. No indications of notability, references do not establish notability, pure advertising/promotional fluff. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - Pure weapons-grade vanispamcruftisement lacking WP:RS to satisfy WP:WEB or WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 71.166.154.41 (talk · contribs) _{17:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
• Strong delete, no prejudice to speedy A7 or possibly G11. No notability whatsoever, no third-party coverage. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm really sorry. I don't understand how do you consider this article "purely" advertising. I would prefer more explicit arguments.

Concerning notability, I've changed the references. Are you sure you have checked their reliability ? And does that mean that every valid article in wikipedia database has good references that meets this encyclopedia standards. Thanks. Boucetta (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right in that there are many articles on Wikipedia which do not meet the sourcing or notability guidelines. However, where these are noticed by established editors, we try to improve them or, if they are simply not about notable subjects, delete them. With regard to this particular article: the website is not a source which will establish its own notability; likewise, websites like alexa or siteinformer that aggregate information about websites automatically without some kind of entry barrier which is meaningful to our notability guideline for web content are not useful for establishing notability. Prlog, as far as I can see, is a place for press releases to be distributed; the article in question looks to be self-published and as such is not useful either, at least for notability purposes. While all these are adequate to back up a particular point, the subject as a whole must be shown to be notable by use of reliable sources. sonia♫ 01:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - None of those "references" meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources (did you read and understand WP:General notability guideline?) … self-published sources, e.g., the subject's own website, are particularly unreliable … Alexa rankings are meaningless in this context, as are press releases (www.prlog.org is not notable enough to have its own article, nor is Website Informer) … and yes, if an article lacks references that meet Wikipedia standards, then it is deleted. — 71.166.154.41 (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If the article is not for commercial nor advertising purposes, is it necessary to have reliable references talking about it ? I understand Wikipedia standards about notability and I believe that those standards are very important to keep Wikipedia an excellent encyclopedia. But what if the article's subject is newly born or created, will it have reliable sources talking about it ? Sometimes no, Internet may be a huge network but it's not the all-of-knowledge network. This time it lacks sources talking about this technical site that help thousands of internet users to resolve their software/hardware issues, and that can be verified by simply visiting the website of this subject. What shall I do ?

I invite you to humanize a bit your method to check the article's notability. I'll be grateful. Thanks Boucetta (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If the subject is new, we wait until it has sources before we make an article. Otherwise, the net effect would in fact be promotional. No prejudice about an article when there are sources to support it, but when there are, routine description of site features found in al l similar sites is not encyclopedic content. DGG ( talk ) 21:36, 2 September 2011 (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.