Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Someecards

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. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someecards

[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)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies)/Wikipedia:Notability (websites) requirements. Coverage is in passing, no in-depth review; pretty much the best source is this short write up in a Wired blog, and it is not impressive, nor that reliable (blog, after all). We are not a directory of random pages, and this one doesn't seem that notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Clearly passes general notability and the requirements of WP:WEB. There are a ton of sources (poorly formatted but obvious nonetheless) lurking in the page already like this New York Times article and there is another NYT profile this time exclusively about the company. Steven Walling • talk 16:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The first link just mentions the company in passing. It's a great source for notability of e-cards in general, because this is what the article is about. That it mentions this company in a side-story introduction is pretty much irrelevant. The second ref is better, but I wouldn't call it in-depth, plus it's half of a WP:INTERVIEW with its associated issues. Anything else you can find would help, it's a good start (but not enough to make me withdraw this nom yet).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:WEB, especially given NYT coverage above. Brad v 13:26, 11 September 2018 (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.