Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LinkedNow.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. There is rough consensus here that the coverage of this topic does not meet the threshold for notability. Skomorokh, barbarian  00:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

LinkedNow.com

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested PROD. Insufficient evidence of notability given --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 17:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  —--  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me,  My Contribs ) 17:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Depending on the definition of "multiple", the website may meet Notability (web) as it has been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". If 2 sources (the multiple reprints of the NBC article notwithstanding) meets the definition of "multiple", then weak keep per WP:WEB –xenotalk  18:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - got brief shallow attention at the time it came out of beta (no, the few items is not substantial coverage of the sort needed to meet WP:WEB, IMHO); nothing much since. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

'''*Keep: ''' I agree with Xeno. The press meets the criteria of "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."

I'm affiliated with NBC, and I looked at LinkedNow's NBC coverage and I can assure you, it is not trivial. We have many companies competing for news spread. Further, the TechNow award is a big deal. The show has significant coverage and has a large following in the bay area as well as throughout California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlaswire (talk • contribs) 19:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC) — Atlaswire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

-- Xeno and Phantomsteve, did you read the last response? This is why non-US residents can't fully understand the importance of TechNow show. TechNow show is not another website, [Smerdis of Tlön, "another website as "Website of the Week"] For those who are from UK, if I wrote that say...http://www.bbc.co.uk/dragonsden/ selected LinkedNow as the website of the week would you still consider this as a vanity advertising? TechNow show is very very reputable and discuses the newest developments in technology such as bing.com, Wii, and other... Many, even very mature businesses of the Silicon Valley would have given anything even for a small air slot, not to mention 2 minute coverage.--Suzan.nguyen (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:WEB - 2 references does not equal multiple as far as I am concerned. Sometimes an article creator just has to accept that the subject of their article does not meet our notability requirements. ukexpat (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm the author of this article. Once again, Ukexpat, is incorrect. Per wikipedia, multiple "Having more than one element, part". Ukexpat pls familiarize ur self with the definitions. The sources are multiple. --Suzan.nguyen (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzan.nguyen (talk • contribs) 21:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being selected by another website as "Website of the Week" does not get past the "trivial" hurdle in my opinion.  Not enough to save what's essentially a press release from a website operated as a commercial enterprise. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am a U.S. resident. I see that whatever TechNow is, it doesn't even have an article in Wikipedia. If it is so important, why haven't you created an article about it? What is your connection with LinkedNow, Susan? Do you have an undisclosed conflict of interest? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:41, 24 October 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.