Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SWiK (2nd nomination)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SWiK

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

First, WP:WEB. A simple google search for swik returns no results (except the actual wikipedia entry as number one). Results for swik.net gives pretty much the same results except there appears to be just one single article from zdnet about swik with minimal useful info. Other than that one single article when the site first launched in 05, there is absolutly nothing.

Then, WP:CITE. The article is about a website 'swik.net' which is dead. The infobox says the owner is [1]. That site is dead as well. A google search for sourcelabs.com brings no useful results. The first reference in the list is Alexa.com which is used for the site rank only. The third reference is another dead link. The only real proof that this site even really existed is the Linux Magazine article from 2005 (which all the links in that article are dead as well).

And lastly, WP:ORIGINAL. The last one third of that article talks about an event that could not be sourced reliably anywhere, entirely original research. I couldn't find absolutely anything about that anywhere.

As from the previous nomination for deletion, the O'Reilly Radar no longer exists. This is ridiculous, you shouldn't need to go to the ends of the earth the find the little source left as a refernce, it's just not notable enough to stay. CyberXRef^talk 02:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The 2008 AfD concluded without consensus, on the basis of a smattering of coverage of potentially interesting new resources 3 years previously. That coverage was hardly more than just note-of-existence, and the product's lack of progress / disappearance since then verifies that this does not meet WP:NWEB notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2013 (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.