Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hound.com (2nd nomination)

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. Salting can be requested at WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hound.com

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

non notable, somewhat promotional, deceptively worded. The college-partnership claim actually means only that the colleges include them as one of many resources. The other refs also are mere listings. Top 20 in a specialized field is not significance. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. The seemingly impressive list of sources is deceptive, as DGG points out. Several of the college job help pages listed don't even mention the subject. If we set those aside, the rest of the coverage is "Top X" lists, which definitely doesn't constitute the depth of coverage demanded by WP:CORP. A Train^talk 14:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam on an unremarkable web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt given the past three deletions in the past 8 years, everything listed here is still only what they want to advertise about themselves and that's not surprising considering the said past deletions; there's nothing listed here suggesting compromising nor that we should even consider it, if it's based solely for advertising. SwisterTwister talk 20:37, 5 November 2016 (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.