Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kadoo

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. Secret ^account 21:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kadoo

This page looks like spam to me. The site was launched at Fall 2008: it seems the site tries to get more hits using wikipedia rather than already having the necessary notabiliy Photoact (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Photoact (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject fails WP:CORP as it lacks non-trivial mentions in independent sources (NYT article cited). The article is borderline promotional, the assertion of notability is lacking per WP standards, relying on association and sourced lacking in independence. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable source with significant coverage to establish notability. Also promotional.--Boffob (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional article about a not-yet-notable company. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have been watching it try to develop, and tried to fix the intro, but it appears it just isn't notable. Maybe someday, with no prejudice to recreate once better secondary sources exist. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per same ressons as User:Ohconfucius outlined above. DustyRain (talk) 20:17, 13 November 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.