Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GoConnect (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GoConnect[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- GoConnect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced article fails to credibly assert notability of the subject per WP:GNG. Was kept at last AfD 6 years ago with the provision that it was supposed to be cleaned up, it's still largely unsourced. AussieLegend (✉) 12:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Having searched for them, I don't believe such sources exist. Reasons offered at the previous AfD, e.g., that it's a listed stock, are no longer considered sufficient to establish notability under current guidelines. Msnicki (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The result from the last AfD was "keep and clean up", not "keep on the proviso that it be cleaned up". StAnselm (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a search at http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/newsSearch.ac?/index.html finds a number of articles in the Fairfax press directly referencing them. Paul foord (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is what I found searching via your link and it certainly doesn't look to me like it qualifies as the substantial coverage required by WP:GNG. What did you find? Links to the actual articles would be a lot more helpful than a link to a search box. Msnicki (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The following are a sample when time period 'entire archive' is selected.
- unfortunately the linksare verbose but can be edited down -- Paul foord (talk) 06:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is what I found searching via your link and it certainly doesn't look to me like it qualifies as the substantial coverage required by WP:GNG. What did you find? Links to the actual articles would be a lot more helpful than a link to a search box. Msnicki (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdwtalk 19:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Try as I might, I can't find any 3rd party mentions of the company. As noted above there's an article that mentions it, but it's not about the article. Given the topic, I'm actually a bit surprised by this, media companies generally have more media. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2013 (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.