Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zomexa


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Zomexa

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

There is not significant coverage in reliable sources that discuss this social networking site. In the future it might become notable, but at this point I do not believe it is notable.  GB fan  talk 00:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The web site is one month old and there is nothing to say about it at this stage. Now, it is just another website and there are no sources indicating notability. Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Note that today a press release has hit and was picked up by Yahoo News. Also on the List_of_social_networking_sites, Zomexa has already developed (in just a month) a better Alexa page ranking than a handful of other sites on the list.  I believe that is notable.  I am new to wikipedia and this has been a very positive experience and I appreciate your feedback.  I understand the lack of reliable sources but I believe that notability has also been established with the double blind search system and the daily improving Alexa page ranking. Zomexa has certainly established and exceeded standards of accepted social networking sites that have been accepted by wikipedia.  If the page is deleted, I would appreciate assistance in what benchmarks would need to be established to republish.  IE - an independent news report, a verifiable number of accepted members?  I believe that both of those things will be coming soon.  Thank you again for your efforts and feedback.GeoffUT (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The notability standards are written out, please see WP:WEB.  This is the guideline for Web content.    The criteria section states three criteria.  If any one of the three criteria are met then the website would be considered notable.  At this point none of the criteria are met.  1.  There are not multiple reliable sources that are independent of the website that discuss it.  2.  The site has not won any awards.  3.  The information on the site is not distributed by means that are independent of the site.  If any of these can be shown, then the site deserves an article until then it does not deserve an article.  I am sorry this has not been a positive experience.  This is nothing against you it is only about the article.  If you have any questions or need any assistance let me know.   GB fan  talk 00:30, 16 January 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.