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. Black Kite (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CampingRoadTrip.com[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company and website. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 3 April 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, BusterD (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep, though I'm not wild about articles with ".com" titles. Perhaps this could be moved to "Camping road trip". The NYT and (WSJ) Smart Money articles are not trivial. The website didn't come up with the notable app, the company did. Wikipelli ^Talk 01:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep: coverage in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal counters the rationale in the nomination of "Non-notable company and website." The New York Times article is comprehensive, while the WSJ article has a passing mention. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes there's a NY times article but not much else. there needs to be signficant indepth coverage which is lacking. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE I would have PROD'd this for WP:SPEEDY if this discussion weren't already in place. 1. This appears to be an article written by an employee or paid, possible sockpuppet with no other contribs Raimi520. 2. WP:NOTPROMOTION this article is blatant advertising/self promotion. The company is not of the size or had the historical impact to be considered relevant encycolpedic information. Wikipedia should not be an advertising site for every company in existence. The company that created angry birds, yes, this site, NO. Also see my next point.3.WP:NOR/NPOV The bulk of the article is copied from the Editorial columns of the technology writers of the NYT/WSJ. The cited sources themselves are not NPOV, they are "Product Reviews"/Advertisements for different apps.Newmanoconnor (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment, not for nothing, but it's not out of the realm of possibilities that an editor makes his FIRST edit an article worth keeping. I don't see # of edits (or whether or not they edit other articles) a factor. It's entirely possible that the editor was/is an employee. That doesn't mean that the article shouldn't be kept. It's discouraged because of wp:coi, but not prohibited. If there's the suspicion that the article is copied, please tag it as copyvio and let's sort it out. The articles are reviews and the app is described as the best reviewed, that doesn't make it an advert. It's citing a 3rd party that says it's good. I'm not going to stress over it too much but, if the article is deleted, let's do it for valid reasons. Wikipelli ^Talk 20:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

response Do I really need to reiterate the previous, and obvious issues with notability here? I don't agree with your comment, but I understand where you are coming from. I think it's a horrible idea to let pages like this stand. I like the social aspect and living breathing aspects of a user edited Wikipedia, but this article is contrary to all of the pillars do encyclopedias and Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia is not an advertising or log for businesses. if a business is notable, then I would agree it should be included. Newmanoconnor (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article is not written in unacceptably spammy prose. The coverage isn't as in-depth as might be fitting, but it is coverage in reliable secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment It doesn't need to be written in spammy prose, and the sources aren't the big issue, the company has done nothing that is notable. the coverage in those sources doesn't grant it notability. This isn't a company that has made a record selling multi platform app, that has revolutionized camping, or even made a big impact. They like millions of others wrote a smartphone app, that was mentioned in a weekly "hey look at these cool new apps I found" editorials section of reliable sources.Newmanoconnor (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at the huge amount of publicity material that this company has churned out makes me wonder if this article didn't originate from that source, and it's not up to us to help them in any way. In my view, two newspaper mentions don't count as "significant coverage" as required by WP:ORG, and after a quick search I can't find any other reliable sources. Being rated by two journos as among the "best of" a tiny niche doesn't count for much either. —SMALL JIM 13:55, 18 April 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.