Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DailyPerfect

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. Courcelles 01:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DailyPerfect

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The primary author of this article admitted to a conflict of interest on the talk page. The references are two blog posts (what makes them reliable sources?), an article on ReadWriteWeb.com (I would doubt this one's reliability, too), and a reliable piece of coverage from a news organization. Still, that doesn't seem enough to meet WP:GNG. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 15:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ignoring the non-reliable sources, a single RS does not notability make. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of wp:notability. Looks like a new web site product and a wp:article to promote it. North8000 (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. I did find another possible source (here), but it seems to focus too much on future speculation (WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOOSOON). Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.