Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elude


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Elude

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

To have an article on Wikipedia, the content needs to be verifiable in reliable sources and the subject needs to be notable. "Notable" in this case means it must have received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Coverage in mainstream press, scholarly journals, books, etc. I searched for sources on this to try to save, but could not find any reliable sources at all, unfortunately. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 14:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 14:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This provider was only just rolled out this month: It hasn't had time to become notable. I would recommend to the author that this topic be revisited in six months or so. Ten days in business is nothing. Oddly, the history of this page indicates it was started by RedPanda25 back in February, but it was a redirect page to Wiktionary. Could it have been accidentally hijacked? Instead of deleting it, perhaps it should be reverted. — Myk Streja [ citation needed ] 18:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. I probably should have looked closer at the history and just reverted back to RedPanda25's version. Certainly no opposition to restoring the redirect. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Elude cannot be deleted, since it is a required link to the Elude e-mail provider in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_webmail_providers.

Jgamleus (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A link to an artcile is not required. Presumably, there is a reliable source for the comparison, and that it is not original research. A citation to that source in a footnote in the Comparison of webmail providers article would be apprpriate. --Bejnar (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- unsourced WP:ADVOCACY; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete article makes no claim of notability, there does not appear to be any independent significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG --Bejnar (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.