Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrity (web agency)


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Integrity (web agency)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Rely primarily on one independent source. Questionable reference are given. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 07:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I find myself similarly unconvinced. Is there a second good source? - David Gerard (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: The sources from St. Louis Business Journal, St. Louis Magazine, and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch are reliable and non-trivial per WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- an unremarkable web agency going about its business. Coverage is run-of-the-mill in the local press covering a local business. Biz Journals are generally considered non RS for the purpose of establishing notability. WP:PROMO also applies as the tone of the page is advertorial, such as:
 * "In 2015, Integrity became an official Google Partner. Several employees are AdWords Certified", and
 * "The company has shared plans for further expansion, adding an additional 100 employees."
 * The article exists to promote the business, and is not adding value at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as it doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP. This is a pretty clear delete. Every single source is a local source which doesn't satisfy WP:AUD. There is literally no claim of significance here either. I mean stuff like Between 2009 and 2013, the company expanded from six to over forty employees shows that it is too soon. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:07, 9 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.