Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capazoo

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 Keep—The lack of independent coverage by secondary sources noted in the nomination has been addressed. The potential for COI issues is not fodder for deletion - as long as the article is NPOV and satisfies sourcing requirements establishing notability, potential COI remains "potential". We have remedies should the primary editor exhibit ownership tendencies, so there is not a reason to shoot down an editor's work on a presumption of bad faith. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capazoo

Capazoo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Yet another social networking site, article created by yet another single purpose account. All versions have been the work of SPAs, including the current one, and it's been deleted twice as WP:CSD#G11 and twice as WP:CSD#A7, by three different admins. The current version makes some attempt to establish notability but lacks reliable independent sources attesting to significance. And it still reads as advertorial. I mean, is the fact that it has a hosting deal with a big provider actually any kind of evidence of anything much? Guy (Help!) 11:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, definitely written in the wrong tone, but the references in the AZ Republic and Media Week are better than trivial. Lankiveil (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC).
• Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep,Current revision reads much less advertorial than previous one, and some references are decent, as Lankiveil said.--Liekmudkipz (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. In addition to refs in article there's this site profile on Canoe.com. It's buried in the external links and in French so perhaps wasn't used by anyone yet, but surely establishes notability. --Dhartung | Talk 00:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This page has clearly been written by the company as a marketing tool. --65.211.179.9 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per Nom Ricardo-Quaresma 19:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Fairly well sourced now, and some external notability. If it has indeed been written as a marketing tool as is possible, it will be the responsibility of real editors to keep the page in line. --S.dedalus 23:48, 3 December 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.