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. Only two valid "keep" opinions, but still no clear consensus. Sandstein 06:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Product Hunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Delete No indications of notability, company has been acquired in 2016. None of the references are intellectually independent and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Corporations are actually often pretty irrelevant ... and sometimes quite transient. Its the products/services they produce that matter. This article falls under WP:WEBSITE. Global Alexa rank of 4,000 and article visits of 1,500 a month are not directly relevant ... this isn't exactly Ed Sheerin, but are an indicator this is likely to be of significant interest. This indicates references are likely to exist ... and the site gains mentions in such places as in International Health where it is suggested as a place to check out emerging technology.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa ranks shouldn't play as a criteria for notability, there are 3999 websites before this that does not mean Wikipedia should list them all. Independent Health has mentioned it but only in passing.Gotitbro (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Alexa as a evidence of a website's notability is like citing the phone directory as evidence of a person's notability. Alexa's stated mission is to cite everything. -The Gnome (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The Alexa Rank metric is a website 'popularity' metric and as such is considerably different than an alphabetic telephone directory. I've seen quotes go their being 2 billion websites .... albeit quite a lot less than 200 million being active. In that context being about the top 4000 it relatively near the top. Careful reading of what I wrote indicated that that of Alexa rank is an indicator a significant number of people were interest in the website ... it had a high probability of people finding it significant. It also means people may be interested in asking wikipedia ... what is 'Product Hunt'. The Independent Health is above a passing comment becuase it is a significant and specific reference.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it's very much a Silicon Valley thing and the references I find are tech sites, but I see enough. [1] [2] are two more refs with in-depth coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This web service company page is important. A lot of new and innovative products / services are launched on a daily basis through their platform. It was funded by prominent venture capitalists like Andreessen Horowitz and it was acquired by AngelList for about $20 million. Over the course of years, it has received notable press from independent publications like Wall Street Journal, Quartz and Fortune. Please consider keeping it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dertrand179 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Dertrand179 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This web site and company has played a large and important part in the launch and promotion of companies and entrepreneurship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.192.165.58 (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— 199.192.165.58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:TOOSOON; nn as either WP:NCORP nor WP:NWEB. Sourcing is in passing ("...one of many such websites..." etc) and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:WEBSITE. The former failing is trivial; as to the the latter, the guideline states that web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria: (1) The content itself has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works whose source is independent of the site itself. (2) The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. I see nothing of this sort for the contested subject. This is as close as it got, yet. So, generously, WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment All references seem to surround press events such as the product launch itself or the acquisition. While these might be from notable publications these are simply coverages of events which does not establish independent notability as said by the nom. Wikipedia would be filled with unencyclopedic entries of any company/product if we were to go about on this criteria as product launches and events (reported on by notable publications) happen almost every day. Gotitbro (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Some resources are good, Tech industry is wide and I think it's difficult to determine notability within the tech world. Could be WP:TOOSOON as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mia Watson (talk • contribs) 16:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This round has a lot of new discussion entrances on delete but I .. and I assume others .. are still for keep. I added yet another cite the other day. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2018 (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.