Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cars.com

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 keep. Consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cars.com

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

Multiple reliable secondary sources not found. One paragraph on a NYT blog isnt enough to show notability TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Apparently, the nominator does not know what a reliable source is, as there are multiple for this article, including Editor & Publisher, Sacramento Business Journal, Adweek, and CNET. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please refrain from assuming that others don't know stuff. When he nominated it the article] had two sources which weren't published by the company. One was the blog mentioned, the other was an apparently unrelated piece from Adweek. Which was also the reason for my prod earlier today. Bjelleklang - talk 22:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This is a borderline delete as far as I can tell. The Adweek sources mention cars.com due to them airing a Superbowl ad, but this alone doesn't make them notable. The articles doesn't really discuss the company, only the ad and that isn't enough to be considered notable. The Sacramento Business Journal gives a little bit more information about the company, but they seem to mention the campaign mostly because one of the owners happen to be from Sacramento. The book referenced helps a lot more, and is the only good source currently in the article in my opinion. Bjelleklang - talk 22:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A long-lasting notable website in the automotive market, as attested by multiple sources over a number of years, some of which are now incorporated in the article. More appears to be out there, but tricky and time consuming to find because there are also many, many hits for stories generated by cars.com itself.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable as evidenced by the multiple reliable sources in the article, e.g. Library Journal or CNET, which can't be assumed to be promotional. Also, there's some interesting coverage about their marketing/management strategy in this book. A $400m business can't be assumed non-notable. The cars.com website is analyzed in a textbook about [web] user interfaces [1]. Being one of the few websites mentioned in the cars section of the 2009 O'Reilly Media book The Internet: The Missing Manual is another sign of notability [2]. The same applies to Internet For Dummies [3]. I think the nominator has put very little effort in researching the topic WP:BEFORE firing up Twinkle. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very large e-business and a pass of GNG based upon footnotes showing, demonstrating multiple substantial instances of coverage in independent sources. Carrite (talk) 18:01, 3 August 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.