Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trendio.com (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Trendio.com
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

the website has closed, was is notable enough to have an article ? Melaen (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.
 * Delete, weakly. Yes, this was a website that was briefly written up in the Wall Street Journal and Time magazine, which certainly count as multiple A-list sources.  It was flash and then fizzle, like so much Internet- and tech-cruft.  The guiding philosophy on Notability in Wikipedia is indeed "long term historical notability", and this web gimmick had none.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, weakly. I changed all of the verbs to past tense and replaced the link to the defunct web site with the last Internet Archive version (2008). I found a mention in a Montreal newspaper and suspect there may be some more. A minor player, yes, but maybe worth preserving as a (mildly) notable Internet artifact. --Quartermaster (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Still a keep (I'm not affiliated with this site nor heavily invested in its rescue). Same reason. An interesting artifact of a bygone site. An internet footnote, but a footnote nonetheless. Note: For some reason my early "past tensing" didn't take (I probably didn't hit SAVE PAGE or something like that). Fixed now. Article is past tense and points to archived final recorded page. --Quartermaster (talk) 10:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a mention in the 2007 Ottawa Citizen to the article so notability is being (albeit weakly) claimed by mentions in WSJ, Time Magazine, and Ottawa Citizen. Except for a couple of blog mentions, no other sources come up using Lexis-Nexis Academic database. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep apparently this was a complete and total flop, but it did get attention in its (very brief) day, mostly due to its weird concept. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is thin at best, but it's there per the above. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:53, 24 September 2010 (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.