- 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. Wizardman 19:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DogTime.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable website per WP:WEB. Prod was challenged. All supplied sources are either blogs, press releases, or trivial coverage. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this, but I am not sure if this proves notability or not. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As far as I can tell, that's a press release, which doesn't help the notability cause. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per nom. Fails WP:RS and WP:WEB. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't judge its notability but this article really feels like WP:SPAM. Its discussion looks like a promotion for DogTime.com. Even its title directs viewers attention to this specific web site. I lean towards delete but don't know the particulars of this company. Artene50 (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:CORP, no substantial or multiple independent sources cited or available to establish notability. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2008 (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.