Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fournote Network

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. Kubigula (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fournote Network

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

Non-notable website. Despite the original author's attempt to make this article look really impressive with lots of references, five separate references were found to be citations to the same press release published in five different magazines. Other references are to generic articles about privacy in social networks, but there is no evidence of anything on the web about this website but self-promotion by its founder. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think this article should be deleted only because some of the sources are from a press release. At least one appears to be from a legitimate source that provides adequate coverage (the Crowdsource Gazette). I think the author or other editors might be able to turn up more sources. A quick Google search reveals some potentially noteworthy ones. If nothing comes up, I'd certainly change my vote. 66.229.0.153 (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The CrowdSourcing Gazette is, in it's own words, a "humble blog" (I.e. not a reliable source). If the IP contributor can point out some of the "potentially noteworthy sources" I'm sure some other Wikipedia editors would be only too happy to take a look. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this stage, the company doesn't have any real independent coverage in reliable sources. There are a lot of reliable online publications covering technology news in minute detail (CNet, Wired, Engadget, The Register, and many general-interest publications too), but I can't find any references in any of them to Fournote. If the company is a success, this will change, but right now, it doesn't meet notability criteria. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with Frankie (FWIW, coincidence, no relation). - Frankie1969 (talk) 11:42, 17 March 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.