Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Outline (website)

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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Outline (website)

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

No evidence of notability. There is nothing shown in this article or found on a Google search that is noteworthy about this web site. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There is evidence of notability. It is covered by notable media outlets such as The Wall Street Journal, The Verge, AdWeek and Re/Code. Amin (Talk) 04:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Up and coming new project from a well-known repeat media entrepreneur. Bonomont (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep The article has been improved since this AFD was started. Its sources include the Wall Street Journal (multiple articles), AdWeek (multiple articles), Fortune, and Business Insider. I don't see how anybody could argue at this point that the subject doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MShabazz's comments. Also pretty silly to nominate an article just 37 minutes after it was created. WP:BEFORE point C2 suggests "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." - Samuel Wiki (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2017 (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.