Deletion of Insider Pages

Comment: It's a startup content aggregator that managed to finagle NYT coverage and reference on CNET.  That does not mean we should suspend ; as far as the importance of sources go, whilst I am in general agreement, I feel that a mention in the NYT does not automatically confer notability - indeed, it should refelct notability, which in this case is lacking
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: The linked-to NY Times article (only just) establishes notability as per . The fact that it was only a single article (i.e. not multiple sources) is mitigated by the fact that it's the NYT, which is pretty high profile as far as media coverage goes. Also, the chief "rival" in that article, Angie's List, has a page on WP as well. Neither company's article is overly self-aggrandising either, which counts in their favour
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: Meets orp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: does not meet orp, read the conditions
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: per Nom and Eusubeus, and because it's full-blown spam. Article history shows it was created by an |SPA who created the article, inserted links to it on articles about his competition, and walked away. Doesn't meet  at all, IMHO
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA||WP:CORP)

Comment: as per orp. As well as the New York Times and CNet, a Google News Archive search shows coverage by Business Week, the Wall Street Journal and Forbes as well as other sources. http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Insider+Pages%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Search+Archives
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)