Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foxtranslate


 * 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. Rlendog (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Foxtranslate

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This website doesn't look like it passes WP:WEB. None of the sources in the article look like they pass our guidelines on identifying reliable sources, and I can't find any sources on Google News or Google Books. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: I found no reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 09:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete essentially advertising for a small company, complete with the price they charge per paid.  DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The references are lacking sufficient independence and demonstration that the company is notable. AllyD (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable company advertising. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has been edited with citations from verifiable sources.Pureenergy05 (talk) 3:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Pureenergy05, and thanks for adding more sources to the article. While your efforts are appreciated, I'm afraid that the sources you added are not enough to satisfy our notability guidelines, in my opinion. From our notability guideline for corporations, it says "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". Let me go through each of the sources in turn, and check them against this statement. Globespan and Raven are connected with Foxtranslate, and so fail to be independent. The Sigma Partners and VentureBeatProfiles don't mention Foxtranslate itself, and so Foxtranslate is not their subject. Posterous.com only mentions Foxtranslate briefly, and so definitely does not count as significant coverage. The Better Business Bureau source only says that Foxtranslate meets their accreditation standards, which I would also say does not count as significant coverage. Finally, SEOBrien appears to be a blog, and so likely does not count as reliable (also see Wikipedia's guidelines on identifying reliable sources). Sources that are usually a good indication of notability are mainstream news articles and books by reputable publishers - if you can find anything that looks like that, then I could be persuaded that the company is notable. If these kind of sources do not exist, though, it may simply be too soon for Foxtranslate to have an article on Wikipedia. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Best —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. I can't find any other sources that fit the mold.  Thanks for the further explanation of notability. Pureenergy05 (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2012 (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.