Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P'kolino


 * 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. Cool3 (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

P&

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Start-up company. Many claims of product placement in different media, but no evidence offered of impact on the larger world or coverage of same. Calton | Talk 17:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no evidence of anything beyond trivial coverage. The article is not encyclopedic in style, and there is little that can be salvaged beyond the references.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 *  Keep (ambivalent), clean up. From Google News:
 * http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_64/s0904023665409.htm
 * http://www.kidstodayonline.com/article/CA6581390.html?desc=topstory
 * http://www.furninfo.com/absolutenm/templates/NewsFeed.asp?articleid=5623
 * http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-12365193_ITM — Rankiri (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as the content of the this PR piece is pure spam. The sources cited by Rankiri also fall into this category: their content is made up from "interviews" of the proprietors, which are probably little more than press releases from the company itself. There is no way this coverage could be classed as being either independent or reliable, and hence fails WP:CORP. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I took a closer look at the found sources and I have to admit that you are right.


 * Home Textiles Today doesn't feature any independent commentary. It's a repost of a press release that is also used by another "article" in Kids Today. For this reason, I don't believe that the first Kids Today article should be seen as an independent reliable source. The article in Furniture World Magazine also seems to quote directly from the company's press releases. BusinessWeek appears to be an independent publication with reputation for fact-checking but I agree that the "SmallBiz" article alone does not establish the company's notability. Further searches showed some minor reviews of P'kolino's products (Klick, Desk, etc) and this article (text version) in Small Business Success that offers fairly significant coverage of J.B. Schneider and the company. — Rankiri (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2009 (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.