Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ridesharing.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. Some sources were suggested by Osoyoos but were rejected as not being WP:RS -- RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ridesharing.com

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

News searches returned only a single passing mention in Forbes. Open web searches gave nothing of any apparent value. All current references are to the official website. Does not appear to have garnered sufficient coverage to establish notability. Incidentally, article is fairly poorly written and overall promotional in tone. TimothyJosephWood 13:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every website that exists does not get an automatic inclusion freebie — it has to be the subject of reliable source coverage in media to qualify for an article, and does not get to keep an article that's metareferenced exclusively to its own self-published content on itself. And as for the claim that an article is mandatory because one exists on FR, that's not a notability claim either — FR is just as user-generated as we are, so the fact that an article exists on FR doesn't necessarily mean it belongs there. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS still applies to content on other language Wikipedias, and not just internally to EN alone. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- 100% promo article on a private company with no indication of notability or significance. Such content is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The page was cleaned up and several sources were added to provide a neutral point of view and an encyclopedic angle. Ridesharing.com is the most recent name and the majority of sources points towards the previous name The Carpooling Network or the French version Covoiturage.ca, previously Le réseau de covoiturage which has numerous secondary sources. DallasMultipass (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— DallasMultipass (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. This Canadian site is the English domain of fr:covoiturage.ca which have a good press coverage, interviews/topos. In English, mentioned in Forbes, and other medias. Also, this site is the database behind a lot of other important carpool networks like Bombardier, universities and Canadian cities. But it's true the tone might be a little promotional, but this can be fixed easily. Best regards. Osoyoos (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of the sources added by DallasMultipass.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hut 8.5 20:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the sources listed by Osoyoos are not convincing for notability. Forbes, for example, is from forbes.com/sites which is a user submitted area and does not count towards notability: 4 Ways to Increase Your Income This Month. The other links provides news clips on the company's web site, and they are the usual suspects -- interviews and other WP:SPIP sources. So unchanged for me: still "Delete". K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As K.e.coffman says, The Forbes ref is just a directory entry and therefore unusable as a RS for notability -- we need to examine all Forbes refs to see which ones are not to actual editorial content. The others are either notices, PR, or both. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:56, 11 September 2017 (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.