Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Licketyship

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licketyship

[edit]

Not notable (very few google hits). Advertising. Sleepyhead 13:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Advertising for a commercial (.com) startup (still in beta - not fully live yet). There are a great many worldwide carriers that use interesting tech on their websites, e.g. for parcel tracking etc, that are far more notable, like Group 4 Securicor, DHL etc. Maybe once they're live and have achieved something commercially...? --Nigelj 13:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising for nn firm. Ruby 15:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advert -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 16:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It Appears to be a startup but with credentials -- covered by CNN and apparently of notable significance to web 2.0 and yale. —\'\'the preceding unsigned comment is by\'\' 67.188.111.36 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I was one of the authors of the article -- heard about the company in blogs, checked it out, apparently going live in a few weeks. They dont advertise (not even sure what that nn firm comment is referring to), and they have reputable ties to the academic community. I think its an interesting new concept and really worth mentioning. Sshoberi 07:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable business. The two comment above are most likely from the same person, as one is an IP and they both use the nonstandard voting term \"Keep It.\" SYCTHOStalk 21:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a notable business -- format of entry not a typical nn advertisement.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 64.128.190.243 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the wikinazis are on the prowl again... this is just as notable a business as any of the others in its category, and the article isn't even written like an ad.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 70.86.172.178 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep speaking as a programmer, this company is both significant and relevant. found this one on a bay area blog and clicked thru to learn more. there are no other firms that have tackled ecommerce from a web 2.0 perspective, as the article states. this company is perhaps more notable than half the other companies in the website category. Paranom 03:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep what is wrong with this entry? Its verifiable, factual, and actually relevant to its category, unlike 9 out of 10 in /websites/. No brainer Macknife 03:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not convinced its groundbreaking, but I'm no engineer. It is verifiable and reasonably notable Keep Matrices 04:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to be the ultimate web2.0 mashup to me. I'm confused as to why people think this isn't relevant. Perhaps they are just ahead of their time. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 67.119.79.132 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a revolutionary company that is changing the retail landscape by leveraging information. It will define new standards of customer service in this instant gratification world and even the playing field in the battle between brick and click retailers. They are game changers! MJR 15:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are an lot of new accounts voicing their opinions here and on the related AfD. Can I please remind you that AfD is not a vote, but rather a method of building consensus. Whilst the opinions of new users are very welcome, the admin who closes this AfD is not obliged to treat them all with the same weight. Personally I think the article Licketyship is more notable than the article on Robert Pazornik, especially as all relevant information from that article can be included in this one. So that'd be a weak keep, but it could still do with being verified/cleaned up. --Petros471 16:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I should probably first qualify that while my account is new, I am not a new user, I have been contributing religiously by IP only for the past 3 years. I stumbled to the LicketyShip article while reading about other Web 2.0 companies, and I must say I'm mostly (though not entirely) befuddled as to why its up for deletion as NN. I have a feeling that most advocating delete don't really know much about web 2.0 and why it's important. The editor who made the comment about Group 4 Securicor and DHL is a perfect exemplar; those companies are about as similar to what Licketyship is doing as Kodak is to Flickr. There is a substantial public interest in this company not only becuase it is part of a larger, more significant movement, but also becuase its doing something no other company has done (or tried to do) before - and it's entirely verifiable. If you do a bit more than a quick google, this company has been covered by Fortune, CNN, and NYT - and I found those in about 2 minutes worth of research. That said, this is my first AfD vote, and hopefully my last.--Bigbang21 22:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems there are sockpuppets in use here. --Sleepyhead 11:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advert. Stifle 14:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. Not otherwise notable. And I ain't no sock puppet.-Ikkyu2 22:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rory096 00:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm admittedly new to editing. I read wikipedia a lot, but havent edited any pages. I searched for licketyship after reading the techcrunch blog. I guess they're not a huge company, but they're apparently notable enough to be recognized by stanford's tech community. I'm not really sure what the standard is for deleting an entry (lack of notability?), but when I google them, I come up with all sorts of hits and articles. Does that not make them notable? Or is it something about what the company does that would make them notable? If its the former, I guess you could be objective by measuring how many pieces in the popular press mention them (which seems to be quite a few). If its the latter, then I guess its pretty subjective, and if you don't know much about the space the company is in, you might not be qualified to voice an opinion -- that's just my 2 cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.133.103 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 2 February 2006
  • Comment made several NPOV clean-ups, per Petros471, using media descriptions as guide


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Licketyship&oldid=1146726161"