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. W.marsh 17:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EGullet[edit]

EGullet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Doesn't look like its been covered by any reliable sources. Admitted vanity article created by site owner. Doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB and fails WP:V. Delete. Wickethewok 21:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Its always nice when the authors fess up to stuff. :-) EVula 23:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So wait, you cant be the founder of said organization and write the original article? Its a not for profit charity! (jperlow)

• Just because you're non-profit doesn't mean there's not a conflict of interest. Wickethewok 18:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Jperlow) There is no conflict of interest because I am no longer involved in the organization. There is no vanity because it is a short article that simply lists factual information based on data from publically avaliable sources, including the site's 501c3 determination filings with the Federal Government and at Guidestar. --Perlow 04:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyways, conflict of interest isn't the primary reason for deletion - there are still the issues of sourcing and failing WP:V and WP:WEB. Wickethewok 04:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(jperlow) the eG Forums site meets -all- the criteria for internet content under WP:WEB and it should be noted that the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts and Letters is NOT a website and its a non-for-profit charity which has 501c3 status with the United States Government. eG Forums, the forum site that it hosts is a website. The material by which the article is based is can by publically accessed on Guidestar, therfore the entire content is verifyable --Perlow 01:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait, I'm not sure I understand how this meets WP:WEB/WP:CORP... what are your sources exactly...? According to Guidestar, they list 1.5 million non-profit organizations - what makes yours any more notable than any of those? Wickethewok 02:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seems to be mentioned often in news articles [1]. I have a gut feeling that reliable sources can be found for this one. Or maybe I'm just hungry. --- RockMFR 05:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mukadderat 16:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Perlow and RockMFR --Arvedui 01:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Independent verification of notability still not provided during this discussion, although the author/owner is active here. `'mikkanarxi 21:01, 8 November 2006 (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.