Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mashable


 * 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. Blowing Snow Advisory. Brandon (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Mashable

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I'm seeing lot of "Mashable reported that blah blah blah happened" hits on Gnews, but absolutely nothing that constitutes non-trivial coverage about the site itself — just name dropping it. Only sources are self-references. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  — Steven Walling  21:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Obviously notable blog with 30 million pageviews a month. Mashable is one of the most widely-read tech publications of all time (ahead of Boing Boing, Gawker, Gizmodo, and Engadget, etc.) and is syndicated by CNN. There is a special difficulty in finding third party source material about any media outlet, since others are loathe to cover a competitor (I should know, I used to write for one of those competitors), but the site's readership is obvious to anyone who takes ten seconds to visit Alexa. Steven Walling  20:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument, neither is WP:BIGNUMBER. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Use some common sense here and look at the links below and in the article, instead of throwing acronyms at me stubbornly. This is not just some mediocre blog looking to spam us. Steven Walling  20:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The site is clearly well-read, and I'm inclined to believe that it's notable. I can't source that, however - which is a problem. Some sources may be available at the article of Pete Cashmore, the site's founder. Alexa rankings do not notability make, but that's a factor as well. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you dig through a Google News search for the site, making sure to remove stories from the site itself with "-mashable.com" or the like, you can see references to it from third party sources aplenty. Steven Walling  20:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Prove it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Found in five minutes:, , , , as well as tons of passing mentions in publications like the New York Times. Steven Walling  20:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - per walling.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: The sources found by Steven Walling are multiple and appear to be reliable. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, lazy, uninformed, and inaccurate nomination. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and audibly gasp at the hypocrisy of Wolfowitz calling someone lazy. --89.211.152.65 (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep – Per Steven Walling. Ten Pound Hammer hasn't objected to the news articles Walling has found. Some facts from the Pete Cashmore article should be incorporated into the Mashable article. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sourcing provided looks good enough to me. Not sure why I wasn't finding it in my initial (admittedly cursory - which is why I didn't go either way) search. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 01:34, 30 December 2010 (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.