Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hound.com
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 03:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hound.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was likley created as part of a pay-for-article business. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Stokeling for details on that...) Asside from that there are no significant reliable secondary sources and thus the subject of the article is not a notable business. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The third-party articles in the reflist seem to be giving a certain level of notability that might (just) allow the article to be accepted. McMarcoP (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Delete - I'm persuaded by Nerdseeksblonde's argument. McMarcoP (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Delete just because it is mentioned in two magazines doesn't mean it is notable. Hundreds of sites a year get mentioned in tech magazines. TheWeakWilled 09:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You can argue about terms- significant, trivial, etc- but ultimately the question becomes, "do the secondary sources contribute enough ideas or analyses of subject to let you write a decent article?" In this case, the citations seem to just be parroting of company PR without additional insights that could form the basis for an article. So, where should we look for more secondary coverage with original independent comments that can be used for an article? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:54, 13 August 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.