Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZipLocal

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, defaulting to keep. Recent reference additions probably establish notability (although article is now promotional in tone). Tan ǀ 39 18:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZipLocal

Barely-notable web company. I deleted this under A7 but was convinced to restore it. While there is some news coverage out there, the vast majority seems to be trivial or tangential or in the nature of a press release. Does not appear to meet WP:WEB, which is the criterion I would apply here. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please also note the deleted article Ziplocal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), created by Zipbudz (talk · contribs), who also left a lengthy message on my talk page pleading for its creation (which I've taken no action on). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --Eastmain (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. --Eastmain (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this article, and have added some more material about the company under its earlier name, redCity Search Company Inc. (redto.com) I think that the article now passes under WP:COMPANY and the general notability guideline, with independent coverage from a variety of sources adding up to notability. --Eastmain (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is possible that the article could be improved using some of the information in the deleted article Ziplocal, which I did not have access to when I was creating this article. --Eastmain (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have examined the deleted contents of all three incarnations of the previous article and the main differences in the content are G11 to the point of uselessness. The actual useful content of the article is not appreciably different from the article as it stands today. Eastmain, if you would create a sandbox and give me the link to it, I would transfer the contents of the previous article into it so you could examine them. Trusilver 21:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Three time deleted article under G11 criteria. While the tone has been fixed, the fact that there really just isn't enough to make this company pass WP:CORP does not. I would be open to changing my position if more verifiable content is submitted. Trusilver 21:41, 3 August 2008 (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.