Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P2Pspot

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P2Pspot

Declining db-spam. The first 50 of 1200 Google hits didn't establish notability; nothing on news.google.com; a few hits on Google's blog search FWIW. I would have {{db-web}}'d it if I had had the patience to skim all 1200 Google hits, but I didn't. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. Google stops claiming dissimilar results after the first 94. It probably could've stopped much, much sooner; about 90% of numbers 51-94 are from various subdomains of facebook; I didn't find anything worthwhile in the remainder. (No hits on Google News, either.) In any case, I don't see an assertion of notability in the article; the point of A7 is to triage which articles are worth looking for further sources for. If the original author didn't provide even a hint of a reason why this website should be documented on Wikipedia, we shouldn't be wasting time verifying it. —Korath (Talk) 02:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per A7 now seems warranted thanks to Korath; the ghits suddenly end at 92, and I see no indication of notability in them. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I requested P2Pspot to be documented to better define 'P2P it' expressions used within my community. There seemed to be some confusion, so I felt an online encyclopedia would be a perfect spot for this information. - webbpage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbpage (talk • contribs) 22:13, April 1, 2009

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 10:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per other comments. Colds7ream (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to request that this article be deleted, please base reasoning off more than hit counts in a Google search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbpage (talk • contribs) 12:44, April 8, 2009
- It doesn't work like that. Subjects need to be both verifiable and notable to merit an article at Wikipedia; P2Pspot appears to be neither, due to the complete lack of reliable third-party coverage. We've made a good-faith effort to find the sources that you, as the article's creator, should have provided but did not - not by counting google hits, but by visiting every one of them and confirming their unsuitability. This isn't something we had to do - as this article is about a website (a subject area that sees a constant influx of articles about unverifiable, non-notable subjects), and it doesn't so much as claim significance, any administrator may delete this article at any time - there was no need to have this discussion in the first place. If the article is to stay, it needs reliable, third-party sources, and there's nobody in a better position to find them than you. We certainly couldn't. —Korath (Talk) 02:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. http://assets.mediaspanonline.com/prod/1771184/01052009_gvl_A08.pdf was added to Wik as a third party source (see 'buy used books'). I'm new at this, please let me know if I need to add anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbpage (talk • contribs) 10:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see http://www.killerstartups.com/Web20/p2pspot-com-connecting-with-your-peers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbpage (talk • contribs) 23:15, 9 April 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.