Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inflow (company)


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Inflow (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An article about an online marketing company, created by a (nearly) single-purpose account. While the article looks professionally-made (which is to be expected from a marketing company), I doubt the notability of this company. "Among the 5000 fastest growing companies in the US" in one year hardly qualified. Srittau (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. st170e talk  17:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. st170e talk  17:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete it seems to be that the main purpose of the article is to promote it by giving off the image that it is a well-known, notable 'fast-growing' company. I've checked online and can't find any news articles or anything of the like that would back up notability for this company so I doubt the notability of the company. The references attached to this article are varied and from different sources, which would seem to signify independent coverage, but it seems that a lot of these are only trivial mentions. The company may well be notable but there aren't sufficient claims to this on the article. st170e talk 18:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. While there is some coverage, I don't see any real claim to notability. -- Irn (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Per rationale, some crucial information (promotional) are self referencing and/or blogs. -- Hakan · IST   20:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as my searches have found nothing better and the current article also contains nothing solidly convincing, only expected coverage. Certainly enough consensus here, SwisterTwister   talk  22:16, 22 May 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.