Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart Destinations


 * 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. Tawker (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Smart Destinations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Clear and unambiguous advertising, created by a serial sockpuppeteer. Nothing to indicate that this company meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm endeavoring to make the page more neutral. Djadvance (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutrality isn't really the issue - notability is. We need significant evidence from third-party sources that the company meets WP:Notability (organizations). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Smart Destinations has been covered in major news sources, which I will now add refs to. From my reading of the notability guidelines, they seem to fit the requirements. Djadvance (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: A superficial glance at the reference list would indeed give the impression that there are sources which satisfy the GNG and WP:CORP. Actually reviewing the sources, however, and each and every one of them fails of being a reliable, independent, third-party source which discusses the subject in the "significant detail" the GNG requires.  The Boston Globe ref, for instance, is a bunch of bulletpoints for six different events, apps and products, all obviously parroted from press releases.  The ABC Local ref consists of product touts and quotes from a company rep, something the GNG explicitly debars as a measure of notability.  The blogposts -- and they are blogposts -- from the NY Times and NBC websites are blatant product touts and read like press releases, something common to many of the refs.   Ravenswing   22:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I found some source from brief Google news search: Consumer Electronics, Virtual Strategy Magazine, Universia Noticias, and Jewish Journal. Trivial coverage in Street Insider and PR News Wire (appears to be press releases). There may be more sources at least two of these source are reliable and the company has been covered by multiple sources, internationally. Valoem   talk  20:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Err ... the first two of those links are explicitly press releases (and are in fact the same press release), with a link to the full press release at the bottom of each. The second two mention the subject in a single sentence only, something explicitly debarred as supporting notability by WP:GNG.   Ravenswing   22:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification I wasn't sure if they were, but my main questions was the Jewish Journal source, more citations are definitely needed, it does not seem to pass GNG as of now. Valoem   talk  22:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Jewish Journal source is nothing but a passing mention, in a self-described blog that gives a strong impression (to me at least) of being intentionally promotional. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 16:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:39, 30 March 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.