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. Wizardman 02:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oneflare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:CORP. It's received very little media notice. Just this article and this. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom sats 07:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree, site has received significant media coverage, including LifeHacker, Techradar, Shoestring .. would you like me to go on? Jamsi (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I had already linked to Techradar. LifeHacker looks good, but not the unsigned Shoestring. Is two enough? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• On second thought, LifeHacker is an interview, i.e. a primary source, and therefore does not satisfy verifiability. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:36, 26 July 2013 (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.