Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowdstorm

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. — FireFox 20:19, 20 July '06

[edit] Crowdstorm

non-notable website/web service, fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Launched July 1, 2006 (2 weeks ago as of this writing), the only real mentions of the site are in blogs/forums [1]. Even these can be explained by its marketing tactics as described on this blog: [2]. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I work for Crowdstorm and just briefly wanted to put our viewpoint across before you go ahead with any deletion. We've been building this company up for some time now and trying to make a difference by letting the crowd find the best products and group together to get the best deals - which is a valuable service. A wikipedia entry is not purely a marketing tactic as we believe it is of interest to people to see more about the company, what it does, and useful links about the business. In fact, we didn't even create the entry ourselves but came across it a few days ago.

In the UK, it is a very notable company (see http://mashable.com/2006/05/15/kicking-up-a-crowdstorm/) and generated a lot of interest to-date which people are searching for across the net. I'm also not sure how this policy compares to allowing things like Last.Fm, Kaboodle, Yahoo up on wikipedia. How is the Crowdstorm entry different?

You guys do a great job of keeping wikipedia clean and we appreciate the work you do. We will abide by any decision you make and just wanted some way of getting our viewpoint across, understanding your reasoning, and seeing if there is anything we can change / do to help to make it more useful to wikipedia readers?

Many thanks.

• Delete per nom. Recury 00:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Perhaps an advert tag should be placed on the page in the interim. Fabricationary 00:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about that - as a cleanup tag, it's generally meant to request cleanup work. As I don't think there's any hope for this article and it ought to be deleted, I think it would be just one more article in the backlog in the cleanup categories for the next 5 days... --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. If someone wants to clean it up and WP:V it, they can. Zos 02:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dionyseus 03:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and SynergeticMaggot. --David Mestel^(Talk) 06:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 07:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom, also note very odd buzzword jargon (encompassing the remit?). Smerdis of Tlön 18:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —- Alias Flood 00:53, 17 July 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.