Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mashable (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The result was Withdrawn per improvements. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mashable

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

Completely devoid of third party sources. I couldn't find any that said anything other than "Blah blah blah Mashable award blah blah". The last AFD had several WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:BIGNUMBER, with no arguments rooted in policy (and one that was outright insulting). Someone turned up four sources in the last AFD, but they are 1.) incidental coverage of an event, 2.) an opinion piece, 3.) a possible source and 4.) PR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep I am disappoint. The website has also been described in these three books as a resource for web presence. There are other sources of Mashable's notability in this discussion of Mashable around the time of AOL's bid, and the website is often cited by notable news sources such as CNN and The Washington Post. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 19:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book content is trivial. You really think one-paragraph blurbs are sufficient? And being cited ≠ notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that it were trivial if it was only a single book, but they are from multiple books. There are also these sources that substantiate Mashable's role on the web by reliable, independent sources:

this article from Entrepreneur directly discusses Mashable notability from its start as a social media tracker.
this review of Mashable and its CEO on Huffington Post.
this review of Mashable by TIME Magazine.

I agree on the idea that references in other media are sufficient on their own per WP:NWEB. But they certainly don't hurt. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 23:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So are you gonna add them, or just hope they add the source fairy adds them for you? Improve the article, then I'll withdraw. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now, no need to be patronizing. I acknowledge that the article needs to be cleaned up. The sources have been added. You were just as welcome to add them in yourself if you took the time to nominate the article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 23:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:19, 29 June 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.