Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Non-existent Internet entities

I think that MMOFPSMUD should be speedied and this discussion closed. Minutely detailed policy is no substitute for common sense. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought speedying was something never, ever to do for something that doesn't fit the speedy criteria. ~~ N (t/c) 21:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I approve of the idea of speedying non-notable internet entities; but this proposal seems to be about speedying non-existent internet entities! Rd232 19:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As i understand it, this is intended when an article about an entity claims notability on the grounds of its internet presence, and a google or similer search falis to suppor tthe claim. The proposal is that that ehould be sufficeint evidence to speedy deelte such articles. DES ^(talk) 19:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and I've renamed it to reflect that. This does only cover entities with zero Internet presence; while those with a small but insufficient presence (like 10 Googles) are probably far more common, I think that setting any Google limit other than zero for speedy deletion is a really bad idea. ~~ N (t/c) 19:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first question that comes immediately to mind is, what is the search term you are supposed to use? This isn't clear in the proposal. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, while the answer to this question is pretty clear in terms of people, groups, and neologisms, some of the things covered by "etc." might be a different case. I assume that if there's not an absolutely obvious search term that should have a google hit, this does not apply? Christopher Parham (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The number of Google hits for a subject isn't the only important thing. The sort of links you get are important too. If something gets a crappy 10 Google hits, but one is the official site of the entity and the 9 others are from news articles discussing the site in question, I'd lean to keeping the info. Non-existent Internet entities are already speediable as unverifiable. If it's notable on the net a search engine should be able to find it. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:WEB for a more comprehensive discussion on the subject. R adiant _>|< 23:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]