Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grouply

:{{la|Grouply}} ([{{fullurl:Grouply|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grouply}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Despite controversies on mailing lists and blogs, Grouply does not appear to be notable. Another editor and myself have both done some searching and nothing turns up from reliable sources (eg Wired magazine has nothing on it). Even Grouply's supporters don't seem to have been able to find anything. Doug Weller (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CORP. You know an article is in trouble when almost every "source" is actually just the subject's own blog. I also note an Alexa rank of [http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/grouply.com #49,735th], which is really weak especially for social networking (for comparison's sake, Myspace is ranked 7). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Contrary to above assertions there are several important citations including TechCrunch, which with startups is more relevant than Wired. Whilst the Alexa stats are not high, it does show more Grouply has doubled its traffic in the last month. Andyswarbs (talk) 00:30, 01 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I see you've added two more blogs. I'm not sure they qualify as RS anywhere, certainly not evidence of notability. What makes TechChrunch more important than Wired? I note that you are the article's creator (and have every right to comment here, but the fact seems relevant) Doug Weller (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

: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.