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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Climb Online[edit]

Climb Online (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)

I've tidied this up a bit: there were some unreliable sources (SEO/marketing blogs, mostly) which I've removed. What's left is, well, not much. This company exists currently as a holding page. It does not satisfy WP:ORG—the fact that it was founded by the winner of the latest season of The Apprentice UK doesn't count for much as notability isn't inherited.

The reliable sources that are left do not satisfy WP:GNG: the Independent article mostly consists of amusing Twitter posts about the last episode of the Apprentice. The Daily Mirror source consists purely of discussion from the television show. The Coventry Telegraph article does not provide the sort of detailed coverage needed to satisfy WP:GNG. The Telegraph.co.uk article mostly consists of quoted tweets from people live-tweeting the show and quotes from participants on the show.

The only other reliable source I've been able to find is this Daily Mail article, which is a TV review article about the final of the show.

Substantial coverage this ain't. An opinion piece in the Daily Mail and a couple of "what did viewers on Twitter say?" articles: it's hardly a case study in the Harvard Business Review. (No smoke in this case may reflect no fire: while this enterprise may represent the Apprentice winner that finally goes on to great things, most of the previous brands have disappeared without trace after the show ended.) —Tom Morris (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Had the topic been mentioned only in small/local newspapers, this article clearly would've been non-notable. But, The telegraph and independent are major newspapers with a global audience, so even the mentions should make it notable.NetworkOP (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: What is in question here is the website and/or business of this name. The available coverage is reheating the final of a reality TV show. Even this site itself seems to contradict the page text: "Here at www.climbonline.co.uk we provide information for rock climbers based in the North East of England. We are not an Online Digital Marketing agency" [1] Who knows what the future will bring but at this point this fails WP:NWEB, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lacks sufficient coverage to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2015 (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.