Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FunnelBrain


 * 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. The consensus was to delete. While the promotional tone of the article was reduced, the concern about sources failing to meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources to prove notability was not rebutted. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

FunnelBrain

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable internet website/product. None of the refs satisfy WP:RS, most are the company's own website, article is written like a marketing piece. &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. These guys were really struggling when they looked for sources.  Strike the Bloomberg link, it just shows who the execs are - doesn't mean it's notable.  The California Academic Decathlon and We Compare Books make no mention of FunnelBrain on their main page - so these links are worthless.  This leaves the link on Mashable.  One, the site is a news blog site - not necessarily notable.  Two, they are a "good alternative" for the top pick - not even the top pick.  Not a single reliable source of notability is linked to on this page.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 06:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment without even clicking through, I can tell by the urls that many of the references are reprinted press releases which can't be used to establish notability. Drawn Some (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, non notable either as a business or website; "referenced" to directories and press releases. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep References have been updated to link to reliable education industry sources. Partnership links are now directed to the correct pages and other marketing "copy" removed.


 * without even clicking through, I can tell by the urls that many of the references are reprinted press releases which can't be used to establish notability. Drawn Some (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.209.157 (talk)
 * 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.