Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blueverse

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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blueverse

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

A well referenced article (hence a speedy decline) that doesn't suggest great notability for a social network site for people with disabilities. Step hen 02:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't agree that this is a "well referenced article". There are 21 "references", but the substantial majority of them are links to pages that don't even mention Blueverse, and the few that do mention it are not independent sources, or only briefly mention it, or both. Thus the article gives no evidence of notability. It also reads, to me at least, as promotional. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I came across this article after being notified on BlueVerse. I am associated with the charity and am on the network. I wanted to contribute - and my apologies if I did not make it acceptably neutral. I've tried very hard to be even, though I know I'm enthusiastic.
I know Wikipedia is an essential resource for any internet user, and I think a wikipedia entry for the network is important because of how vulnerable people with disabilities can be on the net. I added and edited because I want fellow potential members who want to research to network to have an even place to do it - not just the charity's website.
I guess this means I have a vested interest in the article. I think we should make any neutral edits might be desired by Wikipedia. Again, my goal is a place where a potentail fellow BlueVerse member can do some research. I put some stuff about the reasoning behind the network because it's also important information, and often isn't circulated. It seems relevant to me.
The network just opened, so I'm sure the kind of coverage Wikipedia wants to further prove Notability will surface soon. With all of this said, I am asking, in Wiki-speak, not to demolish this house while it is still being built. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.153.41 (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The article is not well referenced. Most of the reference links given simply ref that people with disabilities exist, which has nothing to do with the website. No notability established whatsoever. Travelbird (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep *I started this article because it is a notable topic for people with disabilities. As I am aware that some of you may not have the same frame of reference as people with disabilities. That is why I had made the community aware of the creation of the article so that we can get a neutral point of view on this social network and provide an encyclopedic outlook on the organization behind it, in order for people to learn more about what they are actually supporting. There has been a lot of changes to what I had originally posted, So I think this is a great thing. I invite anyone to help improve the article and make it more neutral and encyclopedic. I have added a few more reliable third party sources such as the NY Post, and the Villanovan that talk directly about the Organization and their Network which I believe is a good start and will continue to add more as I get more time to research. As you are all aware WP:TIND There is no finished version expected soon, and it is perfectly acceptable to let the editing process fashion an article up to the standards eventually. Also I commend whoever, wrote the Social Networking for people with Disabilities section, I think this is a great place to have that sort of information since there will most likely never be an independent article accepted and approved about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaminglegends (talk • contribs) 05:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable secondary sources whatsoever. Abductive (reasoning) 04:08, 18 January 2011 (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.