Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CITYpeek

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. sources are pretty weak, but not obviously a huge failure of WP:N, and the headcount is balanced. Wily D 06:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CITYpeek

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

No independent reliable sources that establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:ORG. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG. These sources were found simply by opening the Google News archive search above:

— See also WP:BEFORE, section D. Also note (in the event the nominator was unaware) that per WP:NRVE, topic notability is not contingent upon whether or not sources are present in articles. Sources comprised of significant coverage in reliable sources only need to exist. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all the spammishness from the article, which unfortunately was almost all of the article. Ambivalent, but tending towards delete; the two news reports linked are local and don't really seem to justify being treated as "significant" coverage. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient coverage for a WP:WEB-based WP:COMPANY. A couple of quotes from the CEO in a local business journal (Baltimore Business Journal) is not convincing me; a 39-word blurb in the Daily Record (Maryland) even less. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Significant coverage: Baltimore Business Journal July 29, 2011, Citypeek forms partnership with Meetlocalbiz.com. Other coverage: Patty newman was interviewed on WBAL-TV about the website on January 13, 2007: "Sarah: So tell us more about your website. Obviously there are a lot of people that don have tickets today. Patty: And want to watch it at a place that's alive. well, that's exactly what citypeek is. It's a peak, a glance at some of the best in town, so many places give you a thousand places to look for the best bar, the best deal. Citypeek sifts through all that. Restaurants attractions and shopping." There's a mention in Baltimore Sun May 16, 2009" "Patti Neumann, who runs Baltimore's CityPeek entertainment Web site, disagrees." There's a mention in Baltimore Sun July 4, 2009: "says Neumann, founder of CityPeek, a tourism Web site" Another mention, Washington Business Journal June 10, 2011: "The news was first reported Friday by CityPeek Baltimore, a local hospitality and tourism website." A last mention in States News Service September 28, 2011: "Free Fall Baltimore is made possible by presenting sponsor ... CityPeek." Maybe one more significant coverage and the topic may meet WP:GNG. ~~Until then, delete.~~ -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just noticed Northamerica1000's Daily Record December 28, 2005 significant coverage link above. Along with Baltimore Business Journal July 29, 2011 and the other coverage, there's enough source information for the article per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2012 (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.