Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GoneTooSoon

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. sourcing concern wasn't met Secret ^account 23:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GoneTooSoon

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

It's an article for a private company, much as any other and is not notable in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.57.221 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is a good-faith submittal for the above IP. tedder (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There has been non-trivial third party coverage that is referenced in the article J04n(talk page) 13:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the editor who created this article has spent most of his/her edits on this article and on a biography of the website's creator. I do not consider the coverage of this website to be non-trivial third party coverage. Racepacket (talk) 14:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The sources provided in the article provide marginal notability for the subject. Angryapathy (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article may need further external references or be rewritten to include further citations. The activies listed don't seem excessively trivial. Maybe just a bit of a rewrite, with some further references? Kartano (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An interesting philosophical question, whether the Daily Mail is a reliable source; but this obituary website seems to have attracted "mainstream" (?!) media coverage chiefly on account of a flawed ad-serving algorithm that dished out ironically inappropriate advertisements. Then again, I am not sure what sort of advertisements would be appropriate for an obituary. Leaving that aside, I don't see that minor flurry of coverage as something that meets the website notability guideline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:31, 2 December 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.