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. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 00:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barrapunto[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough. Arnaugir (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

week delete could not find any significant sources for this.--Salix (talk): 09:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the article says, this site has been the subject of several academic papers. Try a Google Scholar search. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 04:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:WEB and WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:WEB because there's a "non-trivial published work [on the article's content] whose source is independent of the site itself". That is this study, already linked on the page, which appears to be an analysis of the website from a Communications Department at a university. Lord Roem (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The top screenshot here appears to be from Ciberpais, El Pais' technology supplement. It is definitely significant coverage, but I haven't been able to find a copy online. Reported as the second most read blog out of 2000 in a 2004 survey [1] [2], and second most relevant in 2006 [3] [4] (p.120). This article also provides good coverage, and these are short mentions but they have usable content [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. GScholar and archive searchs in El Pais and El Mundo [10] show that it is frequently quoted or mentioned regarding technology subjects — Frankie (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.