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. I'm definitely not seeing a consensus for deletion here. The prospect of a merge was proffered by the nominator and those supporting keeping might be okay with that, but there isn't consensus for that either. Decisions about what to do next can be made via the normal editing process. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article about a very minor company that has had insufficient press coverage to write a proper article, and therefore fails WP:CORP. Jehochman ^Talk 14:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've added some additional notes on the orignal company along with significant press coverage from sources such as a 7 page article in Inc, an article from the Portland Business Journal and a mention from Paul Saffo in the Washington Post. Add this to the existing cited media coverage from BusinessWeek, the San Francisco Chronicle and a Salon article and I think this article does meet the notability requirements. 77.99.132.140 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete: the most recent of the thin sources is 7 years old, too little for an article. Dewritech (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article really deals with two companies, that happen to have the same name. The original company Guru Inc was found in San Francisco in 1999 and acquired in 2003. So its appropriate that the sources that deal with it are from a decade ago. The Inc magazine article alone is a very substantial piece entirely devoted to the founding of the company. The San Francisco Chronicle article is again a substantial piece that is primarily about the company. Both of these are reliable, printed, secondary sources that meet WP:RS. These together with the other, lesser, sources seem to reach all the requirements of WP:CORP, as far as I can see. 77.99.132.140 (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might be right in part. What is the other company? An appropriate result may be to merge this article into the article about the other company. Jehochman ^Talk 14:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per 77.99.132.140. The article can be improved but certainly meets standards for inclusion with the new sources. (In this case, the age of the sources is irrelevant.) --Pnm (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Unicru, the company that acquired Guru.com in 2002. It would be much better to put all the information in one place, because both articles are very short. Jehochman ^Talk 14:29, 17 January 2011 (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.