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 delete. Consensus is clear after relist. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AutoUncle[edit]

AutoUncle (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)

I see no indication that this is a notable website. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable website. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 00:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The given references are start-up coverage. In other coverage, I found mention of using their database [1] but don't see the substantial coverage required (nor are the Alexa ratings indicative of more importance). Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PROMO and not meeting WP:NWEB. Advertorial copy on an unremarkable website. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 30 August 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.