Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crusher (website)


 * 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Crusher (website)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NN startup. Does not inherit notability from its designers, and folded without generating any revenue. MSJapan (talk) 05:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: A WP:SPA article whose history also included substantial editing from an account whose name is similar to the company founder. Brief reviews can be found from the time of the start-up, often relative to competing products of the time, as is typical / necessary for new product propositions, but I am seeing nothing to indicate notability either for the product or the company. I agree with a previous Prod notice, which was removed without comment, and see no real notability: fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not notable at all. Yes, it existed at some point of time and got a few reviews when it started . But the depth of coverage is seriously lacking (fails WP:CORPDEPTH). Being a competitor to a possibly notable service, doesn't mean the subject is notable. The website started in Aug 2006, launched in May 2007 and closed in 2008. From what it appears, it was not notable enough or was not widely used. We simply do not need an article about this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2016 (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.