Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social Blade


 * 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. KTC (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Social Blade

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable internet company. References are either affiliated or only mention it in passing, without providing any in-depth coverage. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 12:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: Full disclosure, I am this article's creator. While this article may not have the support of many news sources written solely on the subject of Social Blade, this company's platform is a common tool used by many media outlets to gather information about subjects that they report on - reports which would not be nearly as substantial (if even exist at all) without their citing of Social Blade. Sources like this IB Times article would not exist without the data collected from the platform in which this article is written about. Khsunkey (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's speculation, and beside the point. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 13:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As per WP:GNG, the sources must be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." A brief citation does not qualify as "significant coverage" nor does it establish notability. Piboy51 (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom, fails WP:NCORP. Vrac (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - This is a tough one. On one hand it looks like many reliable sources have made use of their work and the company name returns a whole lot of ghits, but I'm failing to find articles about the company. I'd be happy to change my !vote if these turn up, of course. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 08:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:GNG, notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Although this company is cited in a number of articles, there is little significant coverage of the company itself. Piboy51 (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. - SchroCat (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Insufficient references from reliable sources to support notability.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, and I'm off to clean up the various articles junked up by the creator in a failed effort to create links to it. Sigh. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2015 (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.