Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jumpcut.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 delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jumpcut.com

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

Short lived company that went belly up in three years. Completely different company currently owns the url. TimothyJosephWood 19:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if we deleted every article of companies that are no longer in operation we would have nowhere near the amount of corp articles we have. It still meets WP:CORP, WP:GNG --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are primarily from the defunct company's old website. Ergo, since it fails WP:RS there's no way to prove WP:N. Tapered (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete JUMPCUT.COM IS THE HOME PAGE TO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT COMPANY. THIS IS OUTDATED! WP:N. crpollock (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapered (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since the article on that new company using the URL was deleted as not notable, that really isn't relevant to this deletion discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean...it is somewhat in the sense that it means the company this AfD is concerned with is defunct, and so it is almost certain they will receive no additional secondary coverage, and they were not stable enough to last more than three years, meaning they were probably not notable to begin with. In contrast, even if they are not currently notable, the company the (assumed COI) editor refers to may be notable some day, and the article can be resurrected if that time comes. TimothyJosephWood 20:32, 20 September 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.