Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desktop.com

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop.com[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Lack of notability (Note: company defunct in 2001; There may be some recent coverage, of another company with the same name) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 23:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. At its current state, there's not enough notability claim to merit an article. --Infogapp1 (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact this company made barely a mark in its brief existence means it has zero notability.TH1980 (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the historic sources only show advertisements or passing mentions. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. Is not notable. Alex-h (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but disambiguate This one is tough bc desktop.com did play an important role in the history of the internet but the domain is currently owned a wholly unrelated company. Brad Thomas Hanks (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is insufficient in-depth coverage. Even if kept, a dab page is not used when there are only two types of a thing. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2020 (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.