Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WAYN (website)

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 keep. After being relisted, it seems this article passes both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:WEBCRIT per all references that were found during this discussion. As others have said, the promotional content can now be rewritten. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WAYN (website)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional and not notable,with no sources except notices of funding, social media mentions, and the like. Mostly written by editors with undeclared COI -- see the COIN discussion: [1]. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an urgent reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The best and most frequently cited source used here is a softball interview by Tnooz (who?) that is thin on researched facts, instead using phrases like "WAYN says...", "the company will debut...", "The business, which says...", and "WAYN proudly refers to itself as...". The other sources, as stated by the nominator, are in-passing mentions of routine funding, corporate announcements and press releases, and more softball interviews. This simply isn't encyclopedic per WP:CORP guideline. I also agree with the promotionalism label, being the one who initiated the COIN discussion. Unfortunately for Wikipedia, once you take that away, there isn't enough left for an article. - Brianhe (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CORPDEPTH is not met, and there's far too much sprinkling about of useless userbase numbers and funding trivia, most of which has little to do with the topic as a main focus. MSJapan (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well-known website (one of the first social networks, no less, though I've never used it) that has received ample press attention over the years and can be dealt with by normal editing, not TNT. There is nothing so dreadful on this article due to COI editing to warrant deletion; that would be cutting our nose off to spite our face. Sources: http://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2016-02-29/beyond-facebook-the-travel-social-networks-you-need-to-know; http://ventureburn.com/2013/09/social-travel-network-wayn-marks-22-million-registered-travellers/; https://techcrunch.com/2010/05/03/niche-travel-social-network-wayn-hits-profitability-mobile-apps-on-the-way/; http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/roadwarriorvoices/2016/02/16/travel-social-networks/80448712/; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1190855/Website-week-wayn-com.html; https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pGxyBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA116; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/2789852/WAYNs-Ward-of-courtship.html; https://gigaom.com/2008/03/17/419-travel-network-wayn-appoints-bank-to-seek-sale-report/; http://thestartupmag.com/qa-session-peter-ward-founder-where-are-you-now/; http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/376c7226-a856-11dc-9485-0000779fd2ac.html?ft_site=falcon&desktop=true#axzz4EhWxTsrw; https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wfkDgc4KnOMC&pg=PA234; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14808977; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7140599.stm; https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/dec/12/new-york-london-tech-firms; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/bidders-are-circling-round-wayns-world-783203.html; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/5154438/British-social-networking-site-WAYN-takes-on-Twitter.html; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/2786267/Wayn-duo-eye-sale.html; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/8151450/Watch-out-New-York-here-come-Londons-tech-stars.html. Collectively, this coverage passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Fences&Windows 21:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:WEBCRIT per a review of available sources. The minor promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 26 July 2016 (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.