Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyScienceWork

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 no consensus. Discussion appears to be without a clear consensus and withdrawn by the nominator. L Faraone 01:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MyScienceWork

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

I became aware of this article because of an edit request at List of social networking websites, but I am concerned that it doesn't pass WP:WEB, and is therefore not eligible for inclusion in that list. Of the references in the article, I think that only this one and this one (Google translations from French) have a chance of passing WP:RS, and I don't think that they are enough to prove notability by themselves. I couldn't find any other sources online. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I, too, came across this article in the same way, which is why it was on my watchlist. I also went through the sources cited in the article and found them lacking. Even the two cited by Mr. Stradivarius are not major sources, and the second one is a tiny puff piece. The only reason I didn't nominate the article for deletion is, unlike Mr. S, I did not do any WP:BEFORE. Although technically it does not affect notability, the article was created by the owner of the website and they have promoted their website in other Wikipedia articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I believe that references 3 & 4 are reliable independent sources. None of the other sources are reliable & independent. However just two suitable sources isn't compelling evidence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Agreed this is borderline. Perhaps a case of being too soon? Just self-asserting a zillion members is pure promotion, but the wording is not as bad as some. Sources in French certainly would count if there were enough of them. Needs work on citation format, sections, removing the wikilnik from external section, etc. Perhaps User talk:Estalere could userify it while being worked on? Then move it into main space when notability was easier to demonstrate. W Nowicki (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If you strip out the advertising and all the first-party sources, you basically have two sources and a sub-stub. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Estalere has added some more sources to the article, including this from Le Parisien and this from 01net. I think that these are just enough to satisfy WP:GNG, and so I would like to withdraw my nomination. I won't actually close this myself, though, as some others have already suggested that the article be deleted. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:39, 23 July 2013 (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.