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 redirect to Generic top-level domain. NAC—S Marshall T/C 10:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.accountant (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)

Spammy article by single-purpose account ToothSelector. Instead of establishing why this top-level domain is important or notable, it describes when and where potential customers can sign up. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:notability and WP:verifiability - I believe it is notable and recognized by The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) (see here and here). Instead of deleting the article, the content which violates Wikipedia policy can be removed. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 19:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Those sources establish existence, not notability. The former is just a listing, the second a kind of press release. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I see coverage in an article at Information Week and an article at The Register. However, these are really just trivial mentions, and they don't satisfy the GNG. When there's more coverage, like .com and .org, then we'll have an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I think the issue here is going to be the depth of coverage. I see lots of passing mentions and single-lines but nothing in the way of "significant coverage". Happy to reconsider if someone finds something I didn't. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Generic top-level domain (which needs to be updated accordingly) as an ATD. Insufficient coverage to establish notability as a stand-alone topic.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I could support that, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, I'd have no objection to that either. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2014 (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.