Talk:Portfolio.com

Complaint
This page was clearly written by an employee of the site in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HereticBleach (talk • contribs) 22:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? It seems to be factual regarding the print magazine's closure, and frank about its failure to make any money and its bloated budget.2600:1004:B11C:ADDA:6029:45EF:4FA8:2FCC (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Notability?
Aside from the non-encyclopedic tone of the article (which does read like something written by a corporation rather than a neutral author,) I have doubts about the subject's notability.

Although the Conde Nast publication was clearly notable judging by its coverage in independent sources, the new website seems to have earned little notice in its own right. The site's current Alexa rank (as of July '16) is below 800,000 in the US, not exactly an indicator of notability.

NB: another commenter suggested there wasn't an NPOV issue since the article mentions the publication's closing—the now-defunct publication was unrelated to the current owner of the website. The current owner, American City Business Journals, has a real trainwreck of a wiki page that could use serious cleanup for both style and point-of-view.

My opinion is that one of the following actions should be taken:  If someone can find independent sources demonstrating the notability of ACBJ's website in its own right, the article should be re-written in a more encyclopedic tone and include those sources. If no independent sources that primarily cover ACBJ's website (rather than the Conde Nast publication) can be found, the article should be re-written to focus on the Conde Nast publication. The ACBJ's website shouldn't be the primary subject of this article in that case. 

2600:8806:4200:6B:90BD:C425:C758:A530 (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)