Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipediavision

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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediavision

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

Pretty neat.. but hardly notable.. fails WP:WEB. Suggest moving to project space to preserve.. (eg. see Wikipedia:Semapedia) -- œ ^™ 10:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. Joe Chill (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added Joe Chill's cites to the article, plus two more, I think. Its not a strong keep, but coverage seems sufficient enough for inclusion. (Note: There is also a turkish language article on it that I can't access.[6] --Milowent (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources found, coverages proves it notable. Dream Focus 05:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - yes, the site has received coverage from reputable sources. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2010 (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.