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. — Scientizzle 16:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ClueNet[edit]

ClueNet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Not notable. Reads like an advert, and every reference is self-published, and no references that could be used to verify this from a third party exist as far as I can see. Spacious, Comfortable, Enjoyable (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Looks like someone created a website, then wrote an article on it, referencing everything back to the website itself. Ignores the whole concept of third party sourcing. When looking for any coverage of the website I found Zero hits all time on a googlenews search for "ClueNet". To sum up, it looks there hasn't been any real coverage for this website/community, ever. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article has no third party sources (all External Links go to cluenet's website), and appears to be advertising "ClueNet". Also, the article fails to assert notability. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-25-2008 • 19:08:05 19:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advert. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 19:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article looks like an advertisement, and the Google link to source 7 doesn't work. All of the references seem to be from ClueNet.org. I'd also like to hear what User:Cobi says about this debate. SchfiftyThree 19:46, 29 July 2008 (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.