Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top10.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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Top10.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)

The article is written like an advert, but of course that is a reason to improve, not delete. Looking at the sourcing however, there is only trivial coverage of routine announcements. The most in-depth coverage from a reliable source is probably the Guardian piece, which is just a few sentences long; the rest is just rehashed press releases. I have been unable to find better sources, so conclude that WP:NCORP (particularly WP:CORPDEPTH) is not satisfied. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites, Israel, and United Kingdom. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources don't establish notability. Fairly obvious product of paid editing, too. - MrOllie (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above. The Guardian is probably the best one, but it's short. Rest are trivial coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I came across the site serval times and I wondered what is the story behind it I tried to collect all the pieces into one coherent article. I really liked the story I found, and after reading couple of similar wiki-articles (example1, example2, example3), I created this one.

I didn't get paid for writing it, I don't receive any benefit from it beside feeling proud :-) Yaniv unger (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The promotion problem is essentially excessive text. Not a biggie. If the topic was notable, we would fix the article. However, it looks like WP:NN. That's the key problem. No use to cleaning up an article that does not belong here. gidonb (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Guardian article counts toward notability but isn't sufficient for keep. If more articles are found, I may change my opinion. gidonb (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2022 (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.