Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exit Mundi


 * 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The result was Keep/Nomination Withdrawn -- JForget  01:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Exit Mundi

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Nominating this article for deletion on behalf of User:Orangemike. He mistakenly proded it, but did not notice it was proded previously. Hence it is a candidate for AfD. The article fails to establish notability which I did not understand previously. See.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable website with no mention of substance anywhere on the Web or elsewhere. The "sources" include one-paragraph mentions and the like. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: appears not to meet WP:WEB criteria: sources appear to either mention it only in passing, or as part of a web directory. Alexa rank of 229,337, and falling. -- Arthur Frayn (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, sources prove the site exists, not that it's in any way notable. The refs included in the article appear to be the sum total of all available TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 14:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are details specifically about this site in The Age as referenced in the article, and it's also been addressed directly in the LA Times. --Explodicle (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As The Age and LA Times is reliable independent sources and gives significant coverage to the topic. Taemyr (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The article in The Age is typical of newspaper "Websites about (insert topic here)" articles, and are covered under the "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site" clause of articles that do not meet WP:WEB. DarkAudit (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It garnered enough notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per coverage in reliabel sources. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable, and has been given coverage in known news sources. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject has received independent coverage in (not 2 but) 4 reliable sources. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: Per the references provided. I agree the article in its present form establish notability.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2008 (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.