Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bintro

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. MBisanz ^talk 22:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bintro

This is a new internet networking tool. There is a dearth of notable independent references, so notability is largely WP:CRYSTALBALL. WWGB (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize I am a "biased" person since I am on the Board of the company, but as you can tell from my wikipedia entry James_Hendler the reason the stub for this article was created was that I had listed Bintro on the boards that I am on. More importantly, the reason I think the article merits inclusion and, in fact, the reason I was willing to join the board (I have turned down a number) is that Bintro is the first company to use semantics in the match process, something I have been suggesting in talks for a number of years now. The addition of semantics to current Web technologies is mentioned in a number of articles on Semantic Web and related technologies - for example the articles on twine (website), Freebase_(database), Powerset (company) - and bintro is the first to bring Web 3.0 technologies to asynchronous match. I realize that these things are judgment calls, but there is considerable interest in this growing area, and this company is the first in its space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JAHendler (talk • contribs) 02:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a dearth of advertising agencies, how is this posting different than Modernista? Allmayaillusion (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC) This article contains 3 notable references to the company, 2 independent articles and a radio interview. Allmayaillusion (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Firstly, notability is not established (WP:WEB requires "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", but the refs are all either not independently sourced (the radio show is an interview with the CEO, the second article is written by the CTO), or unreliable (the third ref is a blog entry) or not particularly relevant (the fourth and fifth refs are about a board member and the technology, not the company). Secondly, the article is not written from a neutral point of view. I42 (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a website and Alexa says it isn't a particularly popular one. It has minimal RS coverage. It should be deleted for now and it can always be recreated, in a more neutral way, if it ever becomes notable. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm going with WP:CRYSTALBALL. It hasn't achieved notability yet and an article should be created if it turns out to be a popular and note-worthy site. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 11:19, 10 April 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.