Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/800razors.com


 * 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. Tone 19:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

800razors.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

created for high degree of promotions, nothing else! Light2021 (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep based on the sources already on the article. This is one of many cookie-cutter nominations by the nominator, who sadly has repeatedly shown an inability to comprehend basic wikipedia guidelines and policies when it comes to companies. It is becoming disruptive. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * and here comes the repeated response. where your "keep" policy failed with many deleted articles now, which shouts about few non-notable and no depth of coverage. You must read this : Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed & Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause & Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Light2021 (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: ample significant coverage in RS to meet notability guidelines, including Advertising Age, Baltimore Sun, CBS, and USA Today. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * like this, please read those article, don't go by the website :)
 * "Razor company offers Brian Wilson $1 million to shave beard"
 * "Brian Wilson offered $1 million to shave his beard" - 2 times
 * Local news: Local startup in the battle for razor customers
 * Such coverage make anything notable? Encyclopedic Notable? We should make this News Paper/ or Gossipedia I guess! for all those companies in the world. Light2021 (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That coverage is literally of a PR push by the company - David Gerard (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. My own WP:BEFORE turns up the PR push that Safehaven86 highlights, but nothing in the way of actual news coverage - David Gerard (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as a company whose obvious PR methods are both people sponsorships and then also PR campaigns, both of which are noticeable in these links listed by not only having someone sponsor and advertising their company, but then also to state what else there is to say about said advertising; the entire article is in fact a damn advertisement, from "product information to "reviews and quotes" to then to the symmetrical PR sources, simply because the news sources reviewed it, is not saving it from the exact PR it is, in that it literally says "the benefits of this company and why you should buy and use it!". Once we actually start taking literal advertisements seriously and consider them anything but advertising, is when we're damning of course and yet not taking any actions about it. Everything here is exactly what was planned and that's advertising, something that is obvious because the account was clearly an advertising-intended account, and unsurprisingly, was never used again and nor was this article itself. Therefore, by actually seeing there was advertising in the article and sources, we should not be making it worse by then actually offering PR and advertising sponsorships and other company-initiated information, because that's only damning it. SwisterTwister   talk  23:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:PROMO on an unremarkable e-commerce company; nothing stands out about it apart from its marketing stunts. That is not enough to get to encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. . The coverage is entirely PR. PR is never a source for notability.  DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.