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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TrustedPlaces[edit]

TrustedPlaces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article poses a conflict of interest, as the originating editor is also apparantly one of the founders of the venture. The content is mostly speculative, considering that the working reference describes the site as being in "open beta" therefore it fails WP:CRYSTAL. The article mentions that they attracted some venture capital, but there's no indication that the website itself is notable, only perhaps the funding thereof. It's not even a particularly large amount of venture capital. The website itself appears non-notable, and the links that might confirm notability are broken. Wikipedia is not a place for you to garner publicity for your web 2.0 startups. Deranged bulbasaur 12:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The non-functional link I'm referring to is the guardian one. The others appear to be websites that afford specialty coverage to "social networking." Deranged bulbasaur 12:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's advertising Lurker ^oi! 16:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete blatent advert Cornell Rockey 16:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not written like a blatant advert but seems to have been created with that intention. Deranged bulbasaur's arguments are convincing. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, changing my view to a weak keep. I've corrected the Guardian link so that it works, and the site also gets a mention in The Register's list of the UK's top 25 web startups. I won't be upset if this does get deleted, but I would suggest the closing admin take a look at the sources before making a decision. Verifiable = yes. Notable = maybe. Conflict of interest = yes. It's a fine judgement call. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:16, 16 March 2007 (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.