Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hippo.com.au

: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. Kurykh 03:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

=[[Hippo.com.au]]=

:{{la|Hippo.com.au}} – (View AfD)(View log)

This article is on a non-notable website and appears to have been created by the company's founder to advertise the company, though the prose has since been cleaned up (User:Masini appears to be the same person as the company's founder, James Masini, and has been cautioned for creating an article on himself which was speedy deleted and adding spam links to other articles). The only cited claim to notability is that the website won the 'SmartCompany.com' 2007 Top Website of the Year award in 2007. However, as smartcompany.com was founded in 2007 (source: [http://www.smartcompany.com.au/About-Us/SmartCompany-at-a-glance-page.html]) the award is not a "a well-known and independent award" which WP:WEB calls for to establish notability and a Google search of the award does not turn up many meaningful hits [http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=SmartCompany.com+Top+Website+of+the+Year+award&btnG=Google+Search&meta=]. Moreover, the purpose of the award is "to recognise a site that might only be a few months old but has potential to grow into a much larger business" (source: [http://www.smartcompany.com.au/SmartCompany-Awards-home/SmartCompany-Awards-industry-list/Top-Website-Award.html]) so it seems to fall under WP:CRYSTAL for our purposes. The other claim to notability is that the site was "nominated for the Deloitte Tech Fast 50" but this isn't cited and only being nominated for an award doesn't establish notability. Neither of the other two criteria at WP:WEB are met as the article lacks reliable sources (a Google search [http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Hippo.com.au&hl=en&start=0&sa=N] turns up only one RS [http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/hippo-fills-yawning-youth-gap/2007/11/15/1194766868251.html] and it's a soft interview with Mr Masini which doesn't evaluate or independently confirm any of the claims he makes about the site) and the website seems to be a stand-alone site. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per WP:SPAM and nom Doc Strange (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I just (belatedly) checked the deletion log and noted that this article was previously speedy deleted twice on 19 January for being blatant advertising. However, an attempt to re-speedy it on 20 January was turned down by User:W.marsh and the article does contain a cited claim of notability, albeit what I think is a very weak one, so I'll leave it to a neutral admin to decide if it should be re-speedied. I'd also suggest SALTing the article to prevent its recreation if it is deleted. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - nicely worded AfD Nick (sorry I just read and commented on another that someone else created which made my eyes spin). I don't have a general problem with COI on these type of articles normally providing that they meet the guidelines. In this case (at this stage) it doesn't so I have to agree exactly with your nomination. --VS talk 11:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. It may also be necessary to salt, based on what the nominator has said. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 12:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete per nom. There is a (weak) claim to notability so not a speedy claim. To my mind this is also borderline WP:SPAM -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt. Barely out of speedy territory, but definitely not notable. Salt becaue of repeated posting. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Mh29255 (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Nick Dowling's findings in the deletion log. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 16:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • STRONG Delete per nom, non-notable advert. I tagged it for speedy-delete and was overruled. So be it, we followed Wikipolicy, which I fully support. It's time now to delete this article once again. Is there something we can do to prevent it from being created yet again in the future? Truthanado (talk) 01:26, 25 January 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.