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. Exactly why this became a magnet for IP sockpuppets, I have no idea. The Bushranger One ping only 00:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WordswithMeaning![edit]

WordswithMeaning! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Superficial impressive article - actually relies on primary sources. An examination of google and other research tools indicates to me that there is no significant coverage for this site. Cameron Scott (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Plenty of coverage in Australia, used as source by newspapers, you cannot base your accusation on Google ranks, a simple search of people like Bill Cooper reveals the site within first page --John25477 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— John25477 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

do you have any connection with the article subject? LibStar (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Plenty of offline coverage, as mentioned in articl site had forums of 400,000+ and yes more online sources needed, but site is reliable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.242.80 (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— 110.33.242.80 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— 58.106.203.179 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— 110.33.235.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— 58.106.202.23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— 110.33.227.161 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And you all edit from the same IP range! What a concidence! --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And by your silliness here you are destroying any credibility that WordswithMeaning! might have had (although, for me, the exclamation mark already precludes any credibility for a site that claims to be a reaction to the trivialisation of news media). Phil Bridger (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no relation to the site, that page doesn't actually have any content on it, There is no conflict of interest, I was searching the site on wikipedia and found that the page had not been created, pretty sure a site having an exclamation mark in its title is not a debatable issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.224.250 (talk • contribs) .
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.
More