Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ability Online (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ability Online[edit]

[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 article does not meet the criteria for WP:NOTABILITY. I have not been able to locate any secondary sources about this website. CircleGirl (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Nicholas et al, while a primary source for the effects of the website, is a fine secondary source on the website itself. However, I couldn't find any other significant coverage (passing mention, passing mention 2). Enterprisey (talk!) 02:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject lack in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:40, 3 December 2018 (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/2018 December 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Organizations are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they can technically be referenced to their own self-published websites. Our notability standards now are much tighter, and much more dependent on reliable source coverage than they were at the time of the first discussion, so the fact that I argued the other way the first time, with reasoning that would get me laughed out of clown college today, is ironic but not determinative. An organization needs to be the subject of enough media coverage to clear WP:ORGDEPTH, not just to have its own website, in order to qualify for a Wikipedia article in 2018. Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 3 December 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.