Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redux (website)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Redux (website)

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

I just declined a speedy on this but I am not convinced that this website - which is apparently still in beta - meets the WP:WEB notability requirement so am bringing it here for wider input. Nancy talk  10:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've seen plenty of websites that have been in beta since they started and are nevertheless plenty notable. I don't think that is particularly relevant to the debate.- Mgm|(talk) 08:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree that there are some notable websites that have remained in beta for their entire existence however, in this case I think it might be relevant as Redux appears to be "properly" in beta in that it is apaprently being accessed/tested by invitation only. Nancy  talk  10:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's a tricky one as a speedy. I can't turn anything up that we could use to source an article. Hiding T 11:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Redux has certainly met criteria 3: "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" The sources include Techcrunch and Venture Beat which are widely read online publications. Furthermore http://www.demo.com/demonstrators/demo2008/124727.html shows a video of Redux Publicity at a DEMO convention. I would say that this site has notability and is legit. More information and background is needed to expand on the article but I don't believe it should be disqualified or removed from Wikipedia.Sc6 (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC) — Sc6 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You've misread what that means. It refers to content, meaning podcasts, webstrips and the like. This is pretty much a hair's breadth from speedy deletion to be honest. Hiding T 18:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  | Talk 01:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say delete as failing notability guidelines at this time. When/if it becomes more popular and garnishes some coverage in reliable sources, it can be re-created. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see where it has failed in terms of notability. The information is provided and backed up with resources. It is a well known site even though it is currently in closed beta. It has been featured on numerous online sites and there are legitimate articles which have clearly explained the site. Likewise it is a company which has received seed fundings from notable individuals such as Peter T. who also help to seed Facebook. It is a legitimate site. Due to that fact, this article should remain in tact as users of the site continue to add and contribute to the content of this page. 136.152.136.190 (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to some reliable sources (for example, articles in major newspapers with significant coverage of Redux) that back up what you're saying? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You might also want to take a look at these links: This is Wikipedia's notabiliy guideline WP:NOTABILITY. If the website doesn't meet those criteria, there is a notability guideline specifically for websites that lowers the bar.  You can see it here: WP:WEB. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:46, 9 April 2009 (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.