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 no consensus. Flowerparty^☀ 00:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WePapers[edit]

WePapers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

nn website Gotttor (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm leaning to keep, but need to know better before voting, there's some coverage in The Hindu, I found another in Italian and a few in Hebrew, but since I can't read either, some sort of vetting of the sources is needed. But given that it's covered in three countries, it looks notable. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom but only if other similar/identical NN websites from Category:File sharing communities are deleted as well. --Shuki (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit like a reverse OSE? Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 09:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment what's up with a brand-new user like User:Gottor starting a Wikipedia career with a series of AFDs.Historicist (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I know nothing about this field, but a news google archives search certainly bears out the claim in the article that it is a new company that received coverage around the world last winter. I put some of the links to news articles in. Historicist (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While I'm not fully convinced of the non-English sources yet, but the fact that they exist, and that the English source actually shows notability, I'm going with a keep for now. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2009 (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.