Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Evolution

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. postdlf (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Evolution

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

No indication of notability. The references are a mix of "we award you this award", and ones pertaining to DeusM (itself considered not notable enough, although then sneakily recreated). It's a random defunct Website. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state) @ 18:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (parlez) @ 18:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage of a launch doesn't make the topic instantly notable. Shii (tock) 03:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is lame, but I can't imagine how a 'zine with 22 "blue names" associated with it could not be notable. Pax 23:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references in the article are all blogs, press releases, announcements, no actual references and when I did a search (making sure to include UBN since "internet evolution" gets a lot of unrelated hits) all I found were those same or similar refs. Its just a defunct web site that never got off the ground. Not notable. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 13:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as noted above, all this coverage is just press release/blog stuff. The New York Times thing was simply a NYT blogger that linked to the website. There's no significant coverage here. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2015 (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.