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 merge and redirect to Nickelodeon (TV channel) --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick.com[edit]

Nick.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Official website of Nickelodeon television network but other than that completely not notable and should not be listed in an encyclopedia. This article clearly falls under WP:SPEEDY's criteria for deletion of websites: "Web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." Refer to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 and WP:WEB, as it relates to this type of article. -- Wikipedical 16:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 16:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Whole-heartedly disagree with nominator - First of all, you believe this falls under SPEEDY because of this statement: "Web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". I believe you must be mistaken, as the first sentence of the article established important. It's the official website to the TV station. Sure, it could use some improvement, but to delete this article would be absurd...I don't see any policy is breaks. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What is notable about it? What is the "impact or historical significance" of this site? Should every official website get a Wikipedia page? That's what WP:WEB is for. -- Wikipedical 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well....per your own link WP:WEB Criteria #1 is The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. . I've love love LOVE for you to argue how Nickelodeon is not notable. The content of the website has to do with the TV show. There is no way in the world this would not pass notability standards --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The content itself..." is referring to the SITE itself. Of course there are published works about Nickelodeon but not Nick.com! I'm not saying Nickelodeon is not notable, I am saying that Nick.com isn't. -- Wikipedical 17:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The content itself..." is talking about the CONTENT. IE: What's INSIDE the website, ie: Nickelodeon, not Nick.com --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's talking about the subject of the article, which in this case is a web site, not a television channel. You have yet to demonstrate that there are multiple non-trivial published works about this web site. Your best, and only, argument is to cite some. Continue to chop logic instead of citing sources, and you'll fail to make a case for keeping this article. Please cite sources. Uncle G 18:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Nickelodeon#Official sites as above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to section of Nickelodeon article. Nickelodeon is certainly notable. Therefore the actions it takes are reasonable to cover. But I don't see why it should be covered on its own at this point. FrozenPurpleCube 18:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Nickelodeon (TV channel), which already has a section about Nick.com that currently directs users to this article. Propaniac 18:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as suggested above. Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the Nickelodeon article as mentioned above. -Matt 20:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Nickelodeon (TV channel). Does not justify separate article. --Bren ^talk 05:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or delete. Not enough to base an article on, but a reasonable subject to cover in the channel's article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely positively whole-heartedly keep. or a merge would do fine. You might as well delete MSN as it isn't truly notable... it's just a search engine! Jonjonbt on a wikibreak but yet protecting Nick.com from being deleted
• Merge; not yet ready for an articleVectorsap 23:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect This is an information and feeder website for the station. Unless the website has a totally separate identity, which this one does not, it should be redirected to the main article. Imagine if each company/business/person will get a separate article for its/his/her website!!! Ohconfucius 01:50, 21 June 2007 (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.