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 Keep Eluchil404 09:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guru.com[edit]

Guru.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Fails WP:CORP. A search of Lexis-Nexis and Google News revealed only a few passing mentions, and I don't believe that they meet the other criteria either. Sopoforic 02:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that my search was faulty. The article still needs sources to be added, but it does have sufficient coverage as noted by Dhartung. --Sopoforic 05:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No assertion of or sources verifying notability under any criterion of WP:CORP. --Shirahadasha 03:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Keep in light of additional sources. --Shirahadasha 05:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree in failure of WP:CORP. --155.144.251.120 04:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable freelance jobs website. I appreciate the fact that the nominator searched, but wonder how he failed to find these sources:[1][2][3][4][5] (and scores more found on Google News Archive). The relaunched site actually has higher Alexa rank than the older site ever did, and it's remained relatively stable in the 1000-2000 range most of the last several years (except for the brief shutdown after the older version went kaput). --Dhartung | Talk 04:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wow, you're right. There's no indication on the results page for a usual google news search that it isn't searching all news, nor any link to search the archive. A search for "guru.com" on the usual news search yielded only four mentions, and a lexis-nexis search for the past two years yielded similar results. I assumed that any current company would have recent news articles written about them. --Sopoforic 05:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, indeed, as much Google love as I have, they have no simple interface to switch between News and News Archive searches, and many people don't even know about the latter (some publications have 1980s results!). They're not a big publicity hound under the current owners but seem to be surviving (FYI, under the former owners, I once made $150 via the site, but I don't even known if I have a current login). Thanks for being receptive. --Dhartung | Talk 05:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep after reliable sources have been cited, meets WP:CORP criteria. Needs more sources to be added though and needs expansion. Terence Ong 11:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Slight keep: It's not exactly ESPN.Com, but it's sort of ok. Utgard Loki 15:26, 19 January 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.