Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Razoo (company)


 * 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  12:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Razoo (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Largely self-referenced, the rest seem to be either non-notable sources or press releases. A WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  02:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep when I accepted this article at AFC I thought the sourcing was a bit weak but seeing the size of the company and its history I was sure there were sources out there and it would survive an AFD. I had a quick look and found these, where it is mentioned as being in the same league as Kickstart, GoFundMe and Indiegogo. There are other sources out there such as . Domdeparis (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete sorry, all the sourcing here doesn't pass the guidelines of WP:ORG or is excluded per WP:SPIP. was fine to accept this from AfC, the standard there is a 50% chance of survival at AfD, but unfortunately I think we have to go with delete here. The sourcing he showed above doesn't meet our standards: source 1 is a part of a list, which we consider routine coverage in corporate/company AfDs. Source 2 from Crux is sponsored content (i.e. an actual advertisement and not just a recycled press release). Source three is also a list, but on top of that it is from Mashable, which we don't consider a reliable source for the purposes of establishing notability. Nothing in the article is independent and non-PR sourcing. Unfortunately, this company is not a notable subject. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 06:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Delete. PR/marketing sources, pure WP:CORPSPAM. Please don't accept this type of spam in the future at AFC (ping User:Domdeparis). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice Piotr but as Tony said there are a certain amount of articles that we accept that will not survive a deletion discussion. And just to put this into perspective my AFD stats stand at a success rate of 80.6% for 390 discussions and if you ignore the no consensus I am at 85.7%. Of those 390 I nominated 276 pages with a 78% deletion rate and ignoring the no consensus this goes up to 83.5% success rate, so I think I will continue to trust my own judgement. If you're interested in checking out your own stats here is the link https://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/. Domdeparis (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete bunch of primary sources and some unreliable websites. No sufficient independent coverage to meet WP:CORP &thinsp;&mdash; Ammarpad (talk) 10:08, 21 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.