Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zenfolio

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. Mailer Diablo 11:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zenfolio

A web hosting service. Original article was spam, I removed the gross POV (leaves not a lot). Alexa rank >120k, ~200 unique Googles. No evidence of innovation, user base, significance, no cited sources, no evidence of meeting WP:WEB Just zis Guy you know? 19:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:WEB. --Porqin 19:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On the talk page, author claims it's trying to define a new term, in which case it fails WP:NEO. But let's face it, it's spam. Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. -- Fan-1967 19:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully disagree. A brief definition and the origin of the term can be important to communicate. For example, not many people know that Acura is a made-up word, which does not exist in Japanese language. In no way I'm trying to spam wikipedia - just sharing the knowledge about the word I came across.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vkuznets (talk • contribs) .

Comment The original version of the article as you posted it, makes the purpose of the article quite clear. Fan-1967 19:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did copy/paste from the site. I agree that it should not be there. Defining the term and its origin is all that should be on the page..—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vkuznets (talk • contribs) .

Except that there is no indication whatdoever that the term is notable in any other context except referring to this website. Fan-1967 19:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then you admitted to a copyright violation. Wikipedia cannot accept copyright violations. --ColourBurst 21:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right -- they came up with the word and use it as a company name, so it is not as widespread as "google". A person coming to wikipedia with the question "what is zenfolio?" (just like I did) should be able to get a quick answer. From a quick look, there seems to be a fair number of people using it. Now, as I learn more, I consider using Zenfolio instead of my current provider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkuznets (talk • contribs)

It is not as widespread as google by a factor of millions. Nice try, but let's face it. If the website is not notable enough to deserve an article, the name of the website, invented by the owners of the website, and only used to refer to the website, doesn't qualify. Fan-1967 20:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... not convinced yet. Simple searches on wikipedia for other services often (but not always) return results. Jobster and zillow show up, while trulia does not. The criteria is not very clear. Anyways, someone will try to add Zenfolio sooner or later. I thought I'd start, others will pitch in if they feel like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkuznets (talk • contribs)

PLEASE read the standards at WP:CORP, which are not unclear. Google, Jobster and Zillow are notable corporations under those standards. Zenfolio is not. Fan-1967 20:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - I watched this page a few hours ago, and noticed it was very POV, and bordering on an advert. However, I was going out, and didn't have time to file for deletion. What can basically be groomed from that article is one line, of an insignificant webservice of low notoriety. Unimportant, hardly any information. Why keep? M0RHI 01:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete in spite of Vkuznets' compelling arguments. Danny Lilithborne 02:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just found a review of Zenfolio on Sydney Morning Herald. Maybe it is not as insignificant as originally thought, although it is a newcomer. Here's the link:

Sydney Herald — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.248.102.82 (talk • contribs)

Comment Doesn't come close to meeting the standard of "multiple non-trivial published works". Fan-1967 21:50, 28 July 2006 (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.