Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poppin, Inc.


 * 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. -- Kinu  t/c 06:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Poppin, Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

One of an interconnected series of promotional articles on this firm and its brands, all created by the apparently single-purpose promotional editors User:Talunz and other editors including User:Maz204 and User:Julieb-pma   Most have been previously deleted as A7, G11, or both. All the references appear to be entirely PR-based, and therefore not usable as reliable sources for notability. Rather than speedy again, I'm bringing them here so re-additions of the material can be unequivocally speedy deleted at reconstructions of deleted content. I'm listing them separately, because it is possible that one or more of the brands might be notable and someone might be prepared to completely rewrite the articles. I've sometimes done such extensive rewriting in the past, but I will no longer do my volunteer unpaid writing to replace the unacceptable work of people who have been paid to do it. (For those brands where it required only some deletions, and where the articles had references clearly showing notability, I did make the edits & have not nominated them here. I'm still willing to do that because fixing the promotionalism is the only way we have  to deal with such low-quality but still acceptable articles.)  DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - a minor brand/startup not worthy of a stand-alone article (especially once the padding and blatant PR is removed). All the sources are based on press-releases/blurbs. It's mentioned in Burch Creative Capital and that's more than enough, although even that article has very marginal notability based on the current sourcing. Voceditenore (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:V, which requires not only that the article include some material from independent sources, but demands that the article be based on independent sources. There isn't enough independent material to form the foundation of an article.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per nomination. This article would need to be entirely re-written and researched if it were ever to meet GNG. BeyondKneesReach (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom.  Spinning Spark  01:07, 12 November 2012 (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.