Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stashspace

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 consensus to Delete. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stashspace

Stashspace (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- {{db-a7}}. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason in this case, the article has several non-trivial sources. I am not sure if that is enough to leave it in this encyclopedia or not... but it does not deserve a speedy delete. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Only 13K Ghits. Googlehit testing is relevant in this case because it's a web-based service. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 04:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (almsot a weak delete, but not quite.) I'll say it's not spam- but if it's not notable enough to have a 'real' article, instead of a list of features, I'd say it's not notable, either.Cantras 05:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Borderline speedy. MER-C 06:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising. --MECU≈talk 16:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• No Stance (Original Article Creator) Article has been expanded (history + Operation Enduring Love) with new sources added. GoogleHits are low because it is a newly-launched site (September) of an existing company. Alexa Rankings are increasing rapidly, and site is in top-10 of most search engines under relevant searches for Video Sharing, Share Video, Online Video Editing, Online Video Storage, etc.
• Weak Delete per above. Cbrown1023 23:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia Notability Criteria for companies, a company is notable if it "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself". This includes newspaper articles and television coverage, both of which have been attained by this company, including NY Times, NewsWeek, Parade Magazine, Washington Post and NBC Universal News, and TechCrunch (see references in articles).--Lugnut22 00:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep and rewriteThis might never have been an Afd if it were rewritten to be like a WP article.DGG 01:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is an interesting one. The article references the New York Times and Dallas Morning News, but the two articles do not mention Stashspace. A Seattle Times article that does mention the company is clearly a local interest piece, and the The Washington Post article cited is dead. I was also willing to take Stashspace's involvement with "Operation Enduring Love" as a fair claim to notability, but again, the cited articles make no mention of the company. As it stands now, it's closer to advertising than it is to encyclopaedic material. A Train ^{take the} 15:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Clarification - StashSpace is a re-naming for Home Movie Corporation, which is cited in all the articles referenced as well as the WP article. The corporate website redirects customers to their new home on the web.Lugnut22 17:19, 13 December 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.