Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CarDomain (2nd nomination)

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 to delete. W.marsh 23:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CarDomain

CarDomain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Wikipedia articles should not be used for Promotional advertisments for CarDomain.com. This domain is also a large contributor to the linkspam problem on Wikipedia (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jan#CarDomain). Fails WP:NOT and WP:WEB. see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Www.cardomain.com Hu12 06:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets WP:WEB, in particular criterion 1 which asks for "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Cited in the article are non-trivial articles from both the New York Times and the Puget Sound Business Journal. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. There seems to be a linkspam problem related to this community, the same as with MySpace and others, but we have an article for MySpace irrespective of that problem. Whether it passes notability or not should not be linked to the actions of its member community. --Dhartung | Talk 07:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Myspace presents a problem of those with accounts promoting their personal "myspace". Clearly a different situation here regarding this spam problem. This long term spamming of cardomain resulted into this example of article spam, i.e.216.254.9.2's contribs (Seattle). Shortly after creation, CarDomain.com was prodded (note: this is the 3rd time others have expressed it being inapropriate), this prod was removed by another Seattle based anon (24.18.188.16) who's history of promoting the domain is evident. Wikipedia should WP:NOT be used for promotion or advertising. I believe it difficult to conceive that someone without a direct interest in this article would act in that manner. The spamming anon IP's are all from Seattle, which is the same location of CarDomain.com [1]. Contributions are from single purpose accounts (Jmcdoggy (also created Www.cardomain.com) and Grseattle), and sock puppets created the sole purpose of maintaining this article. Wanted to make that observation.Hu12 22:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hu12, thanks for that clarification. That's more evidence than was previously presented in the linked discussion, and if that's the case, then it looks more like it is an owner spam problem. Clearly you've done the homework. --Dhartung | Talk 05:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete -- is the Puget Sound Business Journal notable? We don't have an article on it. The Inc. article is "Things I Can't Live Without: Alex Algard" -- a list of gadgets the CEO likes and the CarDomain reference is in his bio -- yet it's a long bio for an article. That leaves the New York Times article which is about such sites in general, but only gives this one several short paragraphs 2/3 of the way through the article as another example of a car site; CarSpace gets a bigger, earlier mention. 734 unique Google hits for cardomain.com seems low for a web site in particular, notability-wise, although such a number might be high for article types such as notable 19th century Costa Rican politicians. Any "keep" or "delete" should probably be prefaced with "weak" -- this is a borderline decision either way. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The Puget Sound Business Journal is the local version of American City Business Journals. They are surely notable, no? Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't know if the local business paper is notable; if it is, then it should be noted that the article there is about CarDomain and is not just a passing reference as is the case with the other two articles.--A. B. ^(talk) 20:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
      • American City Business Journals is a holding company that owns 41 local business weeklies. I note that only 4 of the 41 have Wikipedia articles. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Circulation: 22000[2] --A. B. ^(talk) 20:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
          • They are surely notable, no? No. They're thin little weeklies heavy on the rehashed press releases, local legislation, and local-business-makes-good stories. --Calton | Talk 06:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Spam advertising--Hu12 15:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Two nontrivial mainstream media articles are linked from the article, which clearly meets the requirements at WP:CORP. JulesH 18:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The media articles are, in fact, trivial -- one of them being about the category, not the site -- and one of them isn't even mainstream. The spamvertising is just icing on the cake. --Calton | Talk 06:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with JulesH. Two nontrivial mainstream media articles from relevant publications feature CarDomain. Three if you include CarDomain also discussed in the Contra Costa Times. --if its fast, its probably fun! 22:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC) ← new user; this is their only edit to date. --A. B. ^(talk) 00:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The Contra Costa Times article is about Boompah, not CarDomain. It mentions CarDomain more or less in passing. I encourage others to check out the links to this article and the other article, then make your own judgment of the references independent of my comments or those of others. --A. B. ^(talk) 00:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

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.