Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetFiveStars


 * 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. MER-C 04:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

GetFiveStars

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP. The best references about the company is a passing mention in this WSJ article. Other than this, the coverage is limited to quotes by the employees or trivial mentions. In depth coverage about this company doesn't exist, so I am going for a delete. I should also point out that this is most likely an undisclosed paid editing job. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Notified the author Author notified about COI. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete it also has a passing mention in a Huffington Post blog but that's about it. Buffaboy  talk 03:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep the company is notable and is mentioned in neutral articles i.e 12 Abbottonian (talk) 06:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:corp, insufficient significant independent references. In-depth independent coverage not found.  Refs noted about are trivial mentions. MB 02:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as this honestly should not have been started given, not only the questionability of such subjects to begin with, but there's in fact nothing here of actual significance, so let alone actual notability; therefore what is to be considered is PR, since there's essentially nothing to suggest this could have potential substance. SwisterTwister   talk  04:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sources available fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Seeming repeating coverage in Small Business Trends is actually because a C-level officer of this group writes there and this company appears in the writer bio on each of those articles. Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:58, 18 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.