Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truemors


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Truemors

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I was pretty horrified when I stumbled across this page. It had a lot of in-line links and no proper refs. When I clicked on the links, I found that many of them were dead (including links to the purported website this article was about - which appears to have disappeared into the ether.) I marked them as dead, converted what inline links I could into proper refs and then tagged any "facts" I could not reference. What I'm left with is a page of text that's unreferenced, referenced to a site that's not a reliable source, or referenced to a dead link. I would have put up a PROD notice but that was done once, back in 2007, shortly after the article was created. As best I can tell, it ought to have been AfD'd then. But it wasn't. Nine years later, it's really time to delete this piece about a project that I don't think ever achieved notability in the first place. David in DC (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article is not in great shape, but instead of deletion it should be updated. A Google News search shows coverage at TechCrunch, Entrepreneur, IT World, Huffington Post indicating that it is in fact notable. Wish folks would put in some time to improve rather than just put things up for deletion. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 22:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The TechCrunch piece is an item of fewer than 10 sentences about Truemors being acquired. There's another piece about the acquisition in something called Venture Beat. The HuffPo column is opinion, not reporting. Perhaps it would be helpful if you identified the articles you think bring this article into line with our notability guidelines, because I DID look and found nothing more than opinion pieces and passing mentions. Kowalski is notable. Truemors, not so much. David in DC (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Didn't gain any notability at all in its little time up on the web, certainly has none at all right now. I would also rather see some sources outside of the tech news bubble; all of those sites basically circled around any Kawasaki project like a flock at that time in history (Venture Beat also is pretty much a publication which exists to hype up this kind of stuff without an opposing view).  Nate  • ( chatter ) 23:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: Needs work, but Guy Kawasaki is a notable figure and his major projects have adequate indicia of notability.   Montanabw (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep notability is not temporary DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:17, 30 December 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.