Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amvona


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Amvona

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Looks like spam. Google returns only 19k results: http://www.google.com/search?q=amvona.com%20-site%3Aamvona.com Photoact (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC) 
 * Comment, my search turned up 22.4k ghits. Have you thought that any of those 20k or so ghits could be from a reliable source? Typically that isn't a good method of determining notability because all it takes is a couple good sources for an article to be notable, and it doesn't even need to be from the internet. See WP:GHITS for more information. Tavix (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I checked for news sources here. All the articles are related to the company being sued by Photoflex for copyright infringement.  For news sources, that wouldn't prove notability under WP:ONEEVENT.
 * Comment - I disagree that the article is spam under guidelines Spam The problem with counting ghits while removing the Amvona url is that, because it is partially a photography social networking site, the notability (as indicated by the number of users and amount of user-generated content) is not considered using that metric. (Oddly enough, there are 140k Yahoo hits, but, like Tavix said, not a good method of determining notability) I am requesting a 5-day additional wait before deletion - I know someone who works for the company, and, according to them, there will be a major news article published soon. Kludger (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. There are a couple of old news articles about the lawsuit but nothing about the company itself.  There are no indenpendent reliable sources apparent in the voluminous google web hits either.  Eluchil404 (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2009 (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.