Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prowl (application)


 * 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Prowl (application)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

promotional article for company that is not yet notable, never having released a product. Sourced entirely to mere notices, press releases, an a list of companies in WP.  DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Woah, hang on! This article is richly sourced! It's got sixteen citations of www.crunchbase.com/company/prowl alone. (For one assertion, it even cites this twice. Is this thorough sourcing, or what?) And the CrunchBase page looks very academic, with its own list of sourced assertions. More specifically, they're all sourced directly to getprowl.com. Yes, what DGG says. Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom and, whose sarcasm, though appropriate and wide-ranging, sadly lacks a joke about their "100,000 beta subscribers." I won't upstage by including one.  Seriously, there's nothing in the newspapers about this company, let alone more substantial reliable sources. Some kind of props for the publicity photo of the founder, though, really.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Complete the set: Articles for deletion/Montana Mendy.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable enough and too promotional, as expected from an article sourced from press releases and primary sources.  Too soon for an article at this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:30, 27 January 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.