Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbreviations.com

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. T. Canens (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations.com[edit]

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

Just a run off the mill website. Nothing especially notable, not media coverage besides a few mentions in lists. Susana Hodge (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm finding some evidence to show that it's fairly well thought of (see this, this, and this) - it looks like it's discussed in this book, under just the name "Abbreviations". I can't look at the rest of the book for the exact area, but it's an ALA book. I also have to note that being selected for one of the ALA's best of lists is something that would give at least partial notability, as inclusion in these lists is considered to be an award or at the very least a recognition of significance. I'm not making a judgement either way, but it does look like there is at least some significance here - if there was a list page to redirect to or if the founder or parent company had an article it'd warrant a mention there at the very least. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not the strongest keep, but the site has had a review in an academic journal and another in Choice, which is quite well thought of. (Our own DGG can attest to its reliability.) There was also a mention in what looked to be an academic source, as it was put out by the Linguistic Center of the University of Lisbon, which helps as well. I'm not sure about how major the Red Herring award would be or the Writer's Digest, but I do know that the ALA list mention would give at least some notability, especially as it is one of their annual lists. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ALA 's Best Free Reference websites plus the other information is sufficient for notability. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely notable and reliable per sources posted above. -- Dane ^talk 03:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the recent revisions by Tokyogirl, Sadads (talk) 23:01, 18 January 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.