Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trackle

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. J04n(talk page) 13:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trackle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Defunct website that made a brief splash when announced (all three sources are from Feb-March 2009), then fell off the face of the earth. It therefore fails the portion of WP:N that requires sustained notice from a large audience. Clearly this service failed to obtain that level of interest. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 09:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 09:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep company noted in various sourcea such as "Trackle"&source=gbs_navlinks_s this one in 2006 and as recently as 2014. Notability doesn't expire. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two pages in one book from 2006 hardly counts for much, especially considering that one of those pages is half screencap. Do you have any links to these sources from "as recently as 2014"? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per WP:NTEMP. That "brief splash" was sufficient to confer notability, which does not expire. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:N, notability comes from attention sustained "over a period of time". I submit that three relatively brief articles in two months right at the point of launch, with nothing thereafter, hardly qualifies as attention over a significant period of time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - 2 months would usually be viewed as long enough to avoid WP:LASTING. That grounds usually has more effect with a couple of days or a week. It looks tiny since it's so far back, but 5 months of mentions will look tiny in 25 years. It doesn't prohibit it. There isn't a rock solid objective set of rules on it, but I would say it's sufficient for keep. The coverage in the refs is significantly more than a mention, so WP:SIGCOV would seem to also be met. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:N. Septrillion (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2018 (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.