Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zuula
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Zuula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable website. The two listed reviews are short and trivial, and I have been unable to find any significant third-party coverage in reliable sources, including 0 gnews hits. Haakon (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you search gnews archives ([1]), you will see some previous coverage Timwhunt (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There was also a Newark Star-Ledger article focused on Zuula around 2007, but they do not have an online archive of it. Timwhunt (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Full disclosure: I am from Zuula. I would also add that our user base should indicate the site is notable even though we have not spent much on PR Timwhunt (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean, there are more gnews hits than my rudimentary search exposed. However, I found only incidental mentions and coverage of a different company with a similar name. The Newark Star-Ledger is fine, there is no requirement for an online archive. I did find a copy of it with some effort, and it's a pretty long article with Zuula as its main topic. So this carries some weight. Haakon (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the additional investigation Timwhunt (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean, there are more gnews hits than my rudimentary search exposed. However, I found only incidental mentions and coverage of a different company with a similar name. The Newark Star-Ledger is fine, there is no requirement for an online archive. I did find a copy of it with some effort, and it's a pretty long article with Zuula as its main topic. So this carries some weight. Haakon (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per
this article from the Richmond Times-Dispatch andthis article from Bucks County Courier Times. Along with the Newark Star-Ledger provided by Haakon, these two articles, both of which are specifically about Zuula, establish notability. Cunard (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I found the The Times-Dispatch article in my searches as well, but I concluded that it is about a different company with a similar name (Zuula Consulting vs Zuula.com). Haakon (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake, thank you for catching it. Cunard (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I found the The Times-Dispatch article in my searches as well, but I concluded that it is about a different company with a similar name (Zuula Consulting vs Zuula.com). Haakon (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 13:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability established. ShawnIsHere (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2010 (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.