Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outreach.io


 * 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.  Sandstein  19:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Outreach.io

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is promotional, thus making it an egregious violation of our neutral point of view policy. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 20:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Move back to draft, salt the article Hopefully this page can be "neutralised" in draft space. The article should have been confirmed or denied, like any other draft. This didn't happen. My name is not dave (talk/contribs) 20:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure how this is promotional. This is written in a neutral POV and does not include promotional or leading language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelseyf (talk • contribs) 21:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as I don't see any reason for this to be notable. The company still seems to be in its early VC-funded stage. The product doesn't have a wide userbase and doesn't seem to be notable. The media coverage is restricted to announcements and Public Relations wires which are picked up by various blogs and interest sites. There isn't any credible coverage about the company by well known media. The Forbes article is one of the many "Forbes lists" and is a pure speculation of the value.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as corporate spam on a nn business. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 16 November 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.