Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elixio (2nd nomination)

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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elixio

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

A social network. After a WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion (no indication of importance), the deletion was discussed and examples of media coverage were provided at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 October 20. Most contributors supported listing the article at AfD, which is hereby done. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 09:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only one of the sources given independently covered Elixio and it seems like the article is not notable per WP:N. Vacation9 (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable website and it is spam article created by an SPA. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the sources for is article is the Guardian and Mashable.com. These sources are independent and sufficient for notability. -- Elmaacho (talk 08:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of references does not infer notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see a throwaway mention in a Guardian posting linked to in the external links section, and that's about it. No evidence of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is an article about it in Mashable.com -- FelicitaArch (talk 06:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the link provided in the article, saying it's "about" this site is a pretty big stretch. Also, welcome to Wikipedia. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see significant coverage in the following reliable sources: one, two. (The description of the Guardian's coverage as a "throwaway mention", above, is ludicrous. "Throwaway mention" is a low bar, and the Guardian's subheading-and-paragraph clears it with some ease.)
I also take issue with Alan Liefting's bizarre statement that "the existence of references does not infer notability". In fact the only way to prove something is notable is to list the reliable sources that have noted it! Once you have listed the sources, then the notability challenge fails, irrespective of how many drive-by "delete" comments you get, because this isn't a vote. Stubbify and keep.—S Marshall T/C 22:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 02:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep independent coverage is significant enough to show notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2012 (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.