Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PeoplePerHour

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 keep. postdlf (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PeoplePerHour

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

advertisement for an advertising site. Refs are either totally general rather than about the company or pure PR. Inclusion in a list of fastest growing, usually translates as "not yet notable". DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a website that allows freelancers to find work, established for quite a number of years. I must say I get very annoyed by articles about web ventures who only get attention when they start-up. But in this case the website is getting significant coverage in major newspapers. I'd discount the Business Insider, which is clearly not 'reliable'; I can't access the FT article either, so am trusting that it is more than a name-check. However, there still remains a consistent level of coverage which pushes it over the WP:GNG and WP:NCORP threshold. I don't see 'advertising' either - the article is written quite conservatively and succinctly. Sionk (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think DGG is considering all start-ups non-notable, which is too undiscerning. PPH has seen coverage by the BBC for example here. Its Wikipedia article could make the claim to notability more prominent, for example The Sunday Telegraph described it as "Europe's biggest marketplace for online companies" [1]. Also gets seriously pimped by Financial Times in more than one article [2]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2013 (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.