Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PeekYou

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. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PeekYou[edit]

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

Non-notable website that has not been the subject of sustained coverage in independent sources. Tons of press releases and routine directory coverage cited. Best source is a article about something else in the WSJ that mentions PeekYou in passing halfway down the article. That's not enough for Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 00:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - they are mentioned in various books, including on page 261 of "Online Reputation Management for Dummies" [1] - and the "for Dummies" series is quite mainstream I think. I'm not a regular at AfD (yet) and not so familiar with WP:GNG but I think this could be a contender to be kept. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's evidence that the subject exists, but we need more than existence. The standard is that PeekYou "has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." You'd need at least one -- preferably more than one -- source where the web site is the main subject. When something else is the subject, it doesn't do much to establish notability. WP:WEBCRIT is the most specfic standard here, and again, we want to see that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently in-depth Coverage in TechCrunch [2] [3] and to a lesser extent in WSJ [4], CNET [5], and Mashable [6] [7], and some TV coverage [8] (scroll down), plus mention in something like 40 books (per GB search) makes it certainly pass WP:GNG in my view. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2014 (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.