Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belly (loyalty program)


 * 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) SST  flyer  02:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Belly (loyalty program)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable and promotional. All the refs are merely about the initial rounds of funding for this small company. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia  DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; this was created by someone connected to the company; i had cleaned it up and found what independent refs were available and this was the best i could do. agreed that it fails N.  Jytdog (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not notable.  Agree with nom about the vehicle for promotion - that's what drove me away from the site years ago. MLA (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as my searches have found nothing better, the current coverage is only expected especially for the field subject and the age so overall there's simply nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  06:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This article passes WP:GNG based on a wide variety of postings in the press. It is quite misleading to say that this is just an article created by WP:SPAs, and, or is an WP:ADVERT. , the editor with the most edits to the page, makes full WP:COI disclosure that he works for a VC company and I am not sure why he has not spoken in favor here. A quick scan of WP:ORGIN seems to support inclusion in the encyclopedia. There is lots of real news to be summarized about this company. Most of the news regards its financing, but adequate content is in the news items to describe the business in an encyclopedic manner. The fact that sufficient content exists to present the paragraph describing the service is a good indicator. Walt Mossberg is a co-executive editor of the main source describing the business, All Things Digital. We should have an article on any business Mossberg thinks is notable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per M. The Tiger. Even more sources can easily be found, e.g. Street Fight, Fortune, New York Times, Crain's, Forbes, etc. Pburka (talk) 06:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * gah things like the NYT interview with the CEO do not add to N. Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That the NY Times feels he's notable enough to interview is certainly relevant. Regardless, other sources I identified (Forbes, Crain's) clearly satisfy WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * all of that points to WP:GNG notability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources about the company, although not by a strong margin. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article, although it does not have a particularly promotional tone at this time, such as extolling the greatness of the company, peacock phrasings, or encouraging readers to do business with it. North America1000 02:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It didn't have a promotional tone when it was nomimated. I had cleaned all that up.  So I am not sure what your !vote is about. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The nomination states in part, "Not notable and promotional". My !vote addresses these aspects of the nomination. This seems plain and clear to me. North America1000 02:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes companies seek to get an article in WP for promotion, because they think it helps raise their visibility; that is how we end up with all these articles about marginally notable and non-notable articles about companies with poor sources and talking about stuff like their funding rounds, as was noted in the nomination. Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 20 June 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.