| Revision as of 17:27, 25 May 2013 editLFaraone (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators16,917 edits →Paddle8: Weak keep← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:07, 26 May 2013 edit undoMr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators59,192 edits Relisting debateNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| * '''Weak keep''' The WSJ article predominantly talks about the site, and isn't a mere mention. I'm not sure it is clearly a keep, however, as the WSJ article mentions in TechCrunch perhaps don't meet requirements ''']<font color="darkgreen">]</font>''' 17:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC) | * '''Weak keep''' The WSJ article predominantly talks about the site, and isn't a mere mention. I'm not sure it is clearly a keep, however, as the WSJ article mentions in TechCrunch perhaps don't meet requirements ''']<font color="darkgreen">]</font>''' 17:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| <hr style="width:55%;" /> | |||
| :<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''] to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.'''</span><br /> | |||
| :<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 05:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->] | |||
| <hr style="width:55%;" /> | |||
Revision as of 05:07, 26 May 2013
Paddle8
- Paddle8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously proposed for AD7 and PROD by another editor. This article seems to lacks notability. But I prefer to hear the opinion of the rest of the community. There is media coverage, but I'm doubting if it is enough to justify an article, seeing that the major sources merely mention the subject. And the article seems to be written in a somewhat promotional form. WP:COMPANY Crispulop (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 03:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 18. Snotbot t • c » 20:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Boilerplate PR references, nothing that would establish notability. Even the prose doesn't say anything that claims it is notable, only that it exists. The other sources I find are talking about its funding. Too soon. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Weak keep The WSJ article predominantly talks about the site, and isn't a mere mention. I'm not sure it is clearly a keep, however, as the WSJ article mentions in TechCrunch perhaps don't meet requirements LFaraone 17:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 05:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Categories: