Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AskMoses.com

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 keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AskMoses.com

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

Online chatroom and religious advice service.

Since its creation in 2006, this article has never contained an assertion of notability nor reason why this website is notable. A speedy was declined on the basis that "it gets a reasonable number of Google Books hits". There are currently 22 of these, none (as far as I can see, some are restricted access) covering the subject in any depth. pablo_hablo. 09:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 09:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In its current form, it fails to satisfy WP:NOTE and WP:RS --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 10:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NOTE has been achieved through expansion and addition of WP:RS --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 19:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is plenty of coverage of this site in a lot of big newspapers. I've added a few there but there are many more. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a non-notable website. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the main problem is lack of reliable sources I'm sure it can be fixed [1], [2]. M0RD00R (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a few reliable sources.—Sandahl (♀) 19:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the first three references. Joe Chill (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A well-used site, covered in lots of press reports. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMore than adequate reliable sources. Meets WP:WEB.—Sandahl (♀) 21:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable web-site. It may have gotten some notice from news due to its oddness but I feel it passes Notability (web) only on a technicality. A chunk of the article also violates Wikipedia:NOT#INTERNET.Joe407 (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient saources to show notability. Edward321 (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on WP:OTHERSTUFF only. If that is not a good reason, delete. --Shuki (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a particlarly good reason, no – could you be more specific about what you think rather than what that essay says? pablo_hablo. 00:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it's informative, which is what an encyclopedia is about.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2010 (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.