Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gazelle.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   speedy delete CSD G7 - first editor's request. Pegasus &laquo;C&brvbar;T&raquo; 09:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Gazelle.com

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

article focused on the history of a specific domain name ccwaters (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi CCWaters, do you think I should change the article so that it follows the current Gazelle.com company instead of all of them? (In fact, the current company is the most notable in terms of press sources.). rllerner


 * If it passes WP:WEB, which will be debated here. ccwaters (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The WP:WEB article says that significant coverage (ABC, NBC, CNN, TechCrunch, and many more) is important as are awards:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9XXM_Pm6hI CNET Best of the Web]. As far as the impact that Gazelle has had on the world (outside of its services), it is on the leading edge of green service companies in America.  It has been mentioned by many authoritative sources (Earth2Tech, cNET Green Tech, PC Magazine) as the "Netflix of Recycling".  The company has pioneered a different kind of recycling strategy.rllerner(talk) 15:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete seems to fail WP:V regardless of whether it may or may not pass WP:WEB, WP:CORP, or even WP:N. Reliable 3rd party references are needed and the article doesn't seem to have these. Youtube is not a reliable source as far as I'm aware. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have to disagree with you as to the company's lack of reliable third party sources. First of all, the Youtube video's purpose was not to highlight any connection to Youtube, but to show the content of the video: cNet gave this company their Best of the Web award.  As for reliable third party sources, I guess I do not understand why ABC, NBC, CNN, Fox News, Tech Crunch (one of the internet's most subscribed-to blogs), Gizmodo (another authoritative blog), US News and World Report, PC Magazine, and Fortune do not count as "reliable third-party sources."  Regards,  rllerner(talk) 15:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Never said that "ABC, NBC, CNN, Fox News" weren't reliable though I can't find these references. As for Tech Crunch and Gizmodo my understanding is that blogs aren't considered reliable sources in general on here. If you can point me to the place where reliable 3rd party sources have covered the article's subject in a non-trivial manner than I'll look again but, I haven't seen it yet. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here they are: ABC, PC Magazine, Fortune, cNET Green Tech, US News & World Report, CNBC, The Today Show. And the Youtube Video that I linked to shows the cNET Best of the Web Award.  Regards, Rllerner (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) why aren't the references in the article? 2) why when I click on the ABC link to I get just an advertisement for doors and windows? 3) PC mag one looks okay to me 4)Fortune one is apoears to go to a blog as does the US News one. Continuing to look. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree some confusion on my part comes from the article's current content (for instance is it meant to be about the IP address, about the domain, about the company, about the history of one, two, or more different things? Maybe someone that knows more about the intent of the article can clean it up and reference it better? Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was holding off on putting them into the article in order to first establish whether or not the article will remain. As for ABC, the video is hosted by ABC, and they display ads before their videos.  Just wait for 20 seconds while the ads run and you will see a 5:00 minute spot covering Gazelle on ABC's Ahead of the Curve Segment.  The blog's should be fine, I thought, because they are the official blogs of these news agencies.Rllerner (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright. That makes sense. I guess I will change the page so that it covers the company instead.Rllerner (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've relisted this because I wish someone else weighed in on the notability of this. Personally, I would like to see the article cover the company for whom these references are, as the domain name itself is not particularly notable (especially not, say, the information DNS has on it such as the IP address it points to).  --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR in trying to claim domain name itself is noteable. Seems to be just attempt by author to include mention of current company using domain, as shown by 99% of other contributions.     Has now created article at Gazelle (internet company)  if that is notable enough to stay I'm still sure it only needs one article! -Hunting dog (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * deleteYes, I agree with Hunting dog and am now in favor of deletion. The page for the current company should be enough by itself--I guess that is more notable than the domain.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rllerner (talk • contribs) 13:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per the above request/authorisation by author/main contributor. So tagged. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:35, 18 August 2008 (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.