Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glogster: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 08:27, 16 September 2009

Glogster

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

Does not appear to meet WP:WEB based on references in the article. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the coverage I see are press releases. Gigs (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Weak Keep some of those sources seem reliable enough. Gigs (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I am not familiar with editing at Wikipedia, so sorry for editing): Why would you delete an article about a project using 300,000 students and teachers around the world?

There are coverage that are not press releases: TechCrunch, WebExpo.

And if you want more articles:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.101.173.231 (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove blogs (blogspot/wordpress etc) and other unreliable sources from your list of 79 links.--Otterathome (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Debate wasn't sorted so let's give it another 7 days. Yes I know I'm breaking my own relist rules :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:Notable since has a couple secondary sources. People might want to find out about this site, although the article doesn't really give much info more than clicking on the site itself would give you. Still no special reason to delete.Borock (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The CNet coverage is significant, the TechCrunch coverage is borderline significant, the rest seems unreliable, so notability is borderline. Due to the adverty tone, I come down on the side of delete unless there can be found a third reliable, significant source. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many articles on Wikipedia about social networks with no more than tens of thousands users. I guess Glogster has several hundred thousands. The article may need some rewriting but it is not neccessary to delete it.

[11] [12]

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 *'''Keep''' Passes [[WP:Notable]] since has a couple secondary sources.  People might want to find out about this site, although the article doesn't really give much info more than clicking on the site itself would give you. Still no special reason to delete.[[User:Borock|Borock]] ([[User talk:Borock|talk]]) 01:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' The CNet coverage is significant, the TechCrunch coverage is borderline significant, the rest seems unreliable, so notability is borderline. Due to the adverty tone, I come down on the side of delete unless there can be found a third reliable, significant source. --[[User:Cybercobra|<b><font color="3773A5">Cyber</font></b><font color="FFB521">cobra</font>]] [[User talk:Cybercobra|(talk)]] 01:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' There are many articles on Wikipedia about social networks with no more than tens of thousands users. I guess Glogster has several hundred thousands. The article may need some rewriting but it is not neccessary to delete it.
+[http://appserv.mnstate.edu/instrtech/its/main.php?id=1&menu=1&show=web20&page=tut4]
+[http://www.quisitivity.org/2009/09/glogster-a-unique-creative-tool/]