Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GigSalad (2nd nomination)


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

GigSalad
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Still unchanged since the last AfD, which found considerable weight in the Delete side, considering of the 2 Keeps, one of them was by a now-banned paid spammer, to note the one "good" source that was offered there was in fact a clearly labeled business announcement; to analyze the current sources: 1 is a business profile with 2 and 3 being similar but a guide instead, and 4, 5 and 6 are all clearly labeled company-sourced announcements, which are simply not enough for WP:CORPDEPTH (company guidelines), WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Paid considering the one account has the usual signs suggesting either an employee or hired help. Our policies have never negotiated with advertising or webhosting, considerin that was one of the set policies when WP started. To also search for existing sources, I went to here and here but it simply found pages and pages of published or republished announcements, press releases, notices and similar, now compare to WP:CORPDEPTH's stated [Unacceptable sources are]: Simple statements, brief announcements, press releases, anything for or by the company or where it talks about itself. SwisterTwister  talk  21:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. promotional article on non notable firm. The references are primarily press releases, some from extremely unreliable sources like local business journals. Rankings in "rapidly growing" lists are essentially indications of "not yet notable" -- this is especially true for a rank of 682nd. The actual awards are trivial. The article in CruchBase is a striking example of a useless reference--its a general article, which is just a name check--it says nothing at all about the company except its existence, as one of many others. Any article using mateial such as this can be assumed to be a desperate promotional effort to make an article where none is warranted.  DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. obvious self-promotion MiracleMat (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- the article survived a prior AfD but is not better for it; still non notable & WP:TOOSOON applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO. CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   19:25, 13 March 2017 (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.