Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Link-Assistant.Com


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Link-Assistant.Com

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Self referencing. No notability. Does not meet WP:COMPANY. The article tries to create notability for their product but comes off as an ad. Also, these rankings for their products come from non-notable sources. CerealKillerYum (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 15:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete nearly all Google hits are for press releases. No WP:RS establish notability as per WP:GNG and then it can't be a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * weak keep - it is true that most of the google hits are PR pieces, but these have not been used to flood the article with self-citations. Search Engine Journal is the source of most of the supporting citations, a source which is edited though I don't know to what extent; I've not revised the 'cite web' templates to 'cite news' as a result.  I would call Search Engine Journal a weak but sufficient 3rd party source.  HighBeam does not have anything on the company, which I found unusual, but not unprecedented. The article does need to be trimmed and toned. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 15:43, 24 December 2014 (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.