Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GroundReport (2nd nomination)

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. The claim it meets WP:CORP is not explained, and I can't see it from looking over the article. Proto ► 12:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GroundReport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable news site per WP:WEB, with distinct lack of detailed coverage from other reliable sources. Google gets 50 unique hits for GroundReport 2006 "New York" [1], 8 unique hits for GroundReport "Linux Business" [2], and 10 unique hits for GroundReport "open source" Heise [3].

Note: This article was previously AfDed and speedy deleted as spam. This current version is not deleteable as repost because it has been substantially expanded. The problem with lack of reliable sources, however, remains. Awyong J. M. Salleh 12:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I looked at the sources. The first is in German, so I can't say anything about it. The second, from doshdosh.com, I'm not satisfied as to its nontrivial nature. The third is from the blog of the GroundReport founder, and can hardly be said to be independent. I can't find any better sources than these to establish notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Heise is the most respected technology publication in Germany and basic translation of the German Open Source Meets Business link shows it describes GroundReport's second prize award. Asterixie 02:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Note: Have also added an additional independent source from cyberjournalist. Asterixie 19:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 10:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:CORP John Vandenberg 04:04, 28 February 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.