Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CMUNE

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CMUNE

Non-notable; passing mentions in articles but no reliable source to assert notability. Was unable to locate any significant articles in Google news search etc. Chzz ► 07:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Their chief claim to notability seems to be that they were once 'Startup of the Day' on a significant blog, but as no reliable sources that I can find seem to have written about them since then, it doesn't look like they have yet achieved notability. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. http://www.microsoftstartupzone.com/pages/home.aspx is not a blog. There are many Microsoft Startup of the Day startups, as part of Microsoft BizSpark's program. -sriramkri (talk · contribs) 27 April 2009 (UTC) — sriramkri (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment. If this source isn't a blog, why does it say 'Blog directory' at the top of the page? And has anyone written about them in business journals or computer journals? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. MicrosoftStartupZone.com is an official website of Microsoft; you can see Microsoft's logo at the bottom (and top) of the site. The article was in the blog of this site. Does this mean this can't be used as reference? In any case, I am just curious as to why this page is considered for deletion when that statement can be removed. Thanks. sriramkri.
  - Comment My Hotmail account says 'Microsoft' at the top, so can I cite that as a reliable source? Chzz ► 07:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Good point. I removed it. Sriramkri —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriramkri (talk • contribs) 08:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly non-notable per lack of valid independent third-party references. Drawn Some (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources: [1] [2] --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X clamation point 16:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that first source is a 404 page in Chinese. The second is not much more than trivial if it isn't trivial. I don't believe it establishes notability. Regardless, several reliable sources are needed to establish that the subject of an article is notable and then the information in the article still has to be verifiable through reliable references. Drawn Some (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being "Microsoft Startup of the Day" might show some notability as well. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This link could at notability. It's from an editorial. 11:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriramkri (talk • contribs)

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.