Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talent Zoo


 * 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 NO CONSENSUS. J I P | Talk 07:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Talent Zoo
Violates WP:SPAM, WP:V and others, but mostly the first one WilyD 16:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Also violates WP:VAIN. --Porqin 16:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of the above. Haakon 16:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this spam without prejudice against a proper article on the company, which may pass WP:CORP. Just zis Guy you know? 10:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The article does not violate WP:V &mdash; every bit of information is sourced. It also fulfils criteria for WP:CORP, which states that an article is notable if it meets "any one of the criteria". It meets this one: "it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself (Forbes Magazine, Atlanta Business Chronicle etc)." Do a google hit of this site, and you'll be presented with a hundred results. Additionally (and perhaps secondarily), the article is modelled from other similar articles like Simply Hired or CareerBuilder, which are notable.
 * To the above voters: instead of simply voting "delete per all" or "delete, violates ...", why don't you cite specific examples from these policies and show how this article fails to fulfil them?  Oran e  ( talk  &bull;  cont. ) 03:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. It looks like this has been cleaned up since the nom, and it verifiably passes WP:WEB. -- Wine Guy  Talk  22:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -I just read an article that mentioned this company and looked them up on Wikipedia to get the quick lowdown. I like being able to just go to Wikipedia for the quick summary and then if I want more info I can click over to the site.  My vote is keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.110.78 (talk • contribs)
 * Note: User's first post. Haakon 16:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe this article now meets all the necessary criteria (specifically WP:V, WP:CORP, and WP:WEB). MarkBuckles 09:38, 2 August 2006 (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.