Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emeraz

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. czar 06:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emeraz

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This was not a notable website. Wikieditor600 (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only two of these sources mention the subject at all, and I think that narrows down the notability of the website. Here's a table of the sources. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 03:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Review
1	Doesn't mention the subject at all.
2	~~Reliable source, this one passes.~~
3	Spam advertising source, not reliable
4	Exactly the same as source three, so the same reasons apply.
4	~~Reliable source, this one passes~~

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, was not notable. Spleodrach (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the website. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This social-network proposition received some publicity coverage at start-up in 2010 and at relaunch in 2013, but I see nothing there which would have been sufficient for current WP:NCORP standards. Beyond that, there is the formal note of its dissolution and mention of its failure in an interview with its founder. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2020 (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.