Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZipZoomfly

ZipZoomfly

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I initially WP:PRODed this with the following rationale "Non-notable, defunct retailer. None of the current sources are actual coverage of the company in reliable sources, merely being things such as database listing or user generated content like reviews. Searching for sources under both the "ZipZoomfly" and "Googlegear" names did not turn up any coverage in reliable sources." An IP user contacted me on my Talk page requesting to contest the PROD with this rationale: "ZipZoomFly.com aka GoogleGear.com was an important part of early internet history and a popular place to shop before newegg was founded. The lawsuit between them and google.com (alphabet) was a noteworthy case of parody vs trademark. The page is worth keeping because their are lessons to be learned from it's downfall." I don't agree that reasoning is sufficient to address the sourcing issues that keep this company from passing the WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, but since the PROD was contested, I am moving it to AFD for discussion instead. Rorshacma (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Internet. Rorshacma (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I generally agree with IP. The suit with Google over the naming was notable at the time, and as a computer retailer, they were well and widely known during their heyday - for example, on Anandtech, they were listed in price comparisons against NewEgg, TigerDirect, and Buy.com. In the grander scheme of things, they were just an early online PC component retailer, but as a bit of early online history, they are modestly notable. I'd vote to keep it, but per notability guidelines I'm uncertain enough to say that we need more eyeballs on it to assess.
 * I've updated and replaced a number of of the sources, just to conform better w/policy and guidelines. Regrettably, I could find no mention of their demise from reliable sources; only many comments within PC-focused forums at the time, which of course are not considered reliable. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)  cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. Although I sympathize with the IP's and anastrophe's desire to keep early internet history, this company isn't notable. BEFORE didn't show any RS. Of the current references:
 * 1 is paywalled, let's give it the benefit of the doubt and say it's a good reference.
 * 2 is the Google suit, a primary document, fails RS
 * 3, 4, 8, 9 are the company's own website, fails IS
 * 5, 6 are user-generated reviews, fails RS
 * 7 is simply a business listing, fails RS/SIGCOV
 * anastrophe's find is a listing of comparable products from different retailers
 * I see no sources that meet GNG or NORG. Even if reference #1 is acceptable, that's not enough to establish notability. StartGrammarTime (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * All perfectly legitimate arguments, and sorry for the paywall, didn't realize at the time. The WSJ article is a good, in-depth look at the company, with the president of the company quoted several times, and their efforts to keep customers engaged in the face of growing competition detailed. Here's a 'gift' link to the article for review if interested.
 * But, a single article in a genuinely reliable sources isn't enough. The (lack of a) preponderance of evidence in reliable sources establishing notability is prima facie. No objection to deletion (with a wee tear in my eye, heh). cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)  cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ...And I'm not entirely certain of the propriety of sharing that 'gift' link here. By all means, let me know and I'll delete it if it's problematic. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I was really hoping to find some great sources because the early internet (in all its Comic Sans, under-construction-gif, clashing color glory) was a magical place and preserving as much history as possible is fantastic. Let the children see what we had to do to simply visit a website, and we shall not speak of the trials of downloads! If there had been enough sources I would have been an enthusiastic keep, but alas... StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)