Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4K.com

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. Davewild (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4K.com

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

Non-notable. Other than having had some of its content picked up by news aggregators, this website (which is less than a year old) has no secondary source coverage and no claim to notability. Agtx (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the references are either about 4k technology not the site, or a trivial mention that isn't significant and directly treating the topic. the risk of WP:PROMO with no sign off notability from a search. per WP:GNG I think it misses the notability mark. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial mentions in WP:RS does not create sufficient notability. Fails WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2015 (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.