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. Nobody who expressed an opinion thought the article would be appropriate to keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PurpleTrail[edit]

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

Non-notable company exist only for its profile, Corporate Spam/ Directory. Light2021 (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ only the PC Magazine source seems to be valid, others include a broken link, a blog (not RS), a PR release (not independent) and an open wiki (also not RS). One source is not enough to meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Withdrew my delete recommendation as I could find some small coverage in three books and another article by PC Magazine. It is not enough for me to change to a "keep" yet unless more sources are found. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Delete I'm pretty neutral on this too - I found a similar amount of coverage as Crystallizedcarbon, not enough for keep:
- In-depth PC Magazine article in 2008
- Short PC Magazine article with an overview of functionality
- "The Top 100 Undiscovered Web Sites" in PC Magazine in 2008
- Product review on Earn Spend Live, a publication that includes writers and editors (not just a blog)
- Mention in NYTimes in 2009
- Sentence in The Smart Guide to Bachelorette Parties

Dreamyshade (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about this and reviewing the article history, I've updated my vote to delete - there's just not enough RS available, and there's only one major contributor who likely had a COI (based on the name and other edits), without significant additional edits, and the article is an orphan. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2017 (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.