Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paddle8

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 no consensus. J04n(talk page) 23:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paddle8

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

Previously proposed for AD7 and PROD by another editor. This article seems to lacks notability. But I prefer to hear the opinion of the rest of the community. There is media coverage, but I'm doubting if it is enough to justify an article, seeing that the major sources merely mention the subject. And the article seems to be written in a somewhat promotional form. WP:COMPANY Crispulop (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 03:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 18. Snotbot t • c » 20:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Boilerplate PR references, nothing that would establish notability. Even the prose doesn't say anything that claims it is notable, only that it exists. The other sources I find are talking about its funding. Too soon. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The WSJ article predominantly talks about the site, and isn't a mere mention. I'm not sure it is clearly a keep, however, as the WSJ article mentions in TechCrunch perhaps don't meet requirements L Faraone 17:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:07, 26 May 2013 (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.