Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cargurus

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. - Bobet 16:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cargurus

Non notable website (see WP:WEB) with lots of linkspam (some of which I removed). Author misrepresented Alexa rating in the article (I fixed it). The alexa rating is 455,863. Author removed prod tag. Delete ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I dispute the above. The article has only one link to the site itself, with more links to competitors and external resources. That is not link spam. The original text around Alexa ratings clearly said the article was not in the top 10000 sites on Alexa: that's true and not a misrepresentation. If you want to look at Alexa ratings, make sure to also check out the details Alexa. And I did remove the prod tag, because the speedy deletion template tells you (as the author) to do so if you disagree with the speedy deletion. The purpose is to have this discussion. According to all of the above, I say do not delete this entry. --YoavShapira 19:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - The article has one link to the site now. That is correct. I was referring to an old version. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Don't confuse prod and speedy. They are different. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Saying something is not in the top 10000 when the rating is also not in the top 100000 is a misrepresentation. However, this is offtopic for the AFD. The only thing that matters is that the website fails WP:WEB. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I fail to see how ths site and company come close to the guidelines of WP:WEB or WP:CORP. The content and/or company has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that I can find and doesnt meet any of the other criteria as well at the present time, regardless of an Alexa rating. DrunkenSmurf 20:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I found the site through DMOZ, which in my opinion meets criterion 2 of the Criteria for companies and corporations section of WP:CORP --YoavShapira 21:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment You are mistaken. Criterion 2 says "listed on ranking indices of important companies". That means lists like the Fortune 500. DMOZ is an open directory of important and unimportant companies alike. Fan-1967 21:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment I saw the Fortune 500 and Forbes 500 examples but that list can't be exhaustive, can it? No other directories are considered important? --YoavShapira 21:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment Of course there are others, but they must be reputable selective lists. Let's face it, DMOZ's a phone book: it is an attempt to be a comprehensive directory, not a selective list. Fan-1967 22:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - By the way, thank you for explaining these. At least now I understand what you mean and what policies you refer to. --YoavShapira 21:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Question: the CarGurus site displays content about many cars which have had Haynes manuals written about them. Note 7 of [[WP::CORP]] specifically mentions this as an example of a notable product. So it would seem to apply? --YoavShapira 21:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Lets see if I can follow your logic. WP:CORP says all cars that have had Haynes Manuals written about them are allowed. The CarGurus site displays content about many cars which have had Haynes manuals written about them. Therefore the CarGurus site is allowed. No, that is a logical fallacy. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You're trying to argue that if they write about notable cars they must be a notable site? That's really stretching it. I'm sorry, but you're really grasping at straws there. Fan-1967 22:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Easy guys lets not bite here, YoavShapira already said he was just trying to understand WP:CORP and everything else. I think we can all assume good faith here and not jump all over him, after all this is supposed to be a discussion. DrunkenSmurf 23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point. I'm sorry. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks again for explaining these, I understand now. --YoavShapira 13:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WilyD and consistent with the reasoning of Fan's comments. Joe 21:38, 9 August 2006 (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.