Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insider Pages

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 No concensus - Yomangani^talk 00:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insider Pages

Does not establish notability per WP:CORP. Was deleted via prod on July 26; recreation counts as contested prod, so nominating for regular AfD. --Alan Au 22:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep - The linked-to NY Times article (only just) establishes notability as per WP:CORP. The fact that it was only a single article (i.e. not multiple sources) is mitigated by the fact that it's the NYT, which is pretty high profile as far as media coverage goes. Also, the chief "rival" in that article, Angie's List, has a page on WP as well. Neither company's article is overly self-aggrandising either, which counts in their favour. --DeLarge 10:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• My keep is no longer weak now that User:Uncle G has cited a second source (see below). Notability now established beyond doubt as far as I'm concerned. --DeLarge 15:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep per DeLarge --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Do this C:NET News article and this C:NET News article, both by Stefanie Olsen, help? Uncle G 15:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's a startup content aggregator that managed to finagle NYT coverage and reference on CNET. That does not mean we should suspend WP:CORP; as far as the importance of sources go, whilst I am in general agreement, I feel that a mention in the NYT does not automatically confer notability - indeed, it should refelct notability, which in this case is lacking. Eusebeus 16:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Nom and Eusubeus, and because it's full-blown spam. Article history shows it was created by an SPA who created the article, inserted links to it on articles about his competition, and walked away. Doesn't meet WP:CORP at all, IMHO. --Aaron 21:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Keep Other reviewers have found additional articles since I first entered a comment. So, according to the letter of item #1 of WP:CORP (multiple non-trivial mentions in the press), we should be keeping it. The article itself seems quite boring, however. When I look at the Angie's list article I see more about the actual impact that the web site has had, and the reactions of the users. The Insider Pages article says, 'This is a company active in local search, and it has X thousand listings'. Not too enlightening. EdJohnston 16:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:Corp. As well as the New York Times and CNet, a Google News Archive search shows coverage by Business Week, the Wall Street Journal and Forbes as well as other sources. [1]

Seems notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Meets WP:Corp. Englishrose 13:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet WP:Corp, read the conditions!! --MaNeMeBasat 15:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep by even the strictest interpretation of WP:Corp (see criterion #1). A cursory search of the web turns up multiple articles from CNet News, Business Journal, and the New York Times, of which this company is the direct subject. --FortyHertz 15:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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.