Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4shared

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. Courcelles 00:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4shared

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

Not notable and POV issues. d'oh! _talk 14:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ORG, and reads quite like a promotional page. Bigger digger (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very notable website. Has many non-trivial publications about it (as references in the article). Passes both WP:GNG and WP:WEB. --Stickee (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the "references" is very questionable: CrunchBase (#1) and AboutUs.org (#2) is Wiki; PCWorld (#3) has only one paragraph (trivial); Techie Buzz (#4) is a press release from 4shared; comScore (#5) has just a ranking; compete.com (#6 & #8) is questionable website statistics; #7 is the DMCA why?; #8 is a website with nothing about the subject. d'oh! _talk 10:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete per nom, or keep and reinstall advertisement tone banner in the article, since it may looks spammy. The Junk Police (reports|works) 09:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2010 (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.