Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zumeo.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. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zumeo.com

Advert for not yet notable company written up Mat Rudisill, VP of Marketing. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Advert.. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert/spam/notability/corp, pick one. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaning to Keep. Zumeo is the subject of an exclusive article by the major newspaper for its area of operation (the Mail Tribune). So it's certainly had some coverage in the news. Also, I myself, as well as other WikiProject Oregon editors, have rewritten the article signficantly. To suggest that it should be deleted because it violates our conflict of interest rules is patently false. That said, I don't think that Zumeo clearly meets the requirements of WP:CORP. Steven Walling (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has issues, most of which I removed or moved to the talk page. There are at least two substantial idependant reliable sources that concern this site, so good enough. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respects, even the two sources read like adverts. They do not sound in the least as neutral. Is there such available? Perhaps some neutral comparison? Or something to show a special notability? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, there is one reliable source. The Mail Tribune is a long-respected paper in Oregon, it's definitely reliable. They certainly don't do business features like this for every new website or company in their region. But cheezhead.com is just a blog with no significant reputation for reliability, it clearly fails the requirements of WP:RS. Steven Walling (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, cheezhead.com is not a reiiable source. Apparantly CNBC radio did a profile on them. I haven't listened to it yet, and they may not add it in time for this AfD. Read more on my talk page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A single reliable source does not constitute evidence of notability. Delete as lacking substantial coverage in reliable sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:40, 4 October 2008 (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.