Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Submit press release 123


 * 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. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 18:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Submit press release 123

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non notqbl. th r3f are either self-authoreed, press releases, or not substantially about the subject. Our bar for companies in the advertising business is and ought to be relatively high.  DGG ( talk ) 08:48, 7 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  09:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Little to no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This company is featured in article in Forbes and TechCrunch and is a $100 M a year business. If you don't like parts that seem self promotional than edit them. But the article in Forbes was an interview so it makes sense the CEO would use that opportunity to promote his company. It's easy to get outraged and say "Delete" it but the company isn't going away and they meet the notability requirements so its unfair to delete them rather than edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supereditor1001 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * All of the references are self-published (BuzzFeed user article, TechCrunch article, CNN "iReport" article, press release) or non-reliable sources (Forbes contributor blogs, Examiner.com). Many only mention the company in passing, and don't even support the cited claim. Reliable, third-party sources are required to demonstrate notability. Trivialist (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Forbes and Techcrunch are not self submitted and 95% of articles are guests (Huffington Post has no in house writers.) Just because they are in passing doesn't validate them. He hasn't had a feature article yet, but has been in business for 15 years and does $100 Million a year in business. My sense is you don't like he's in advertising, but we can't eliminate all the advertising companies except the mega stars. If there's a problem with the claims then let's edit the article instead of deleting it. There's issues with many articles on Wikipedia and they are not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supereditor1001 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, nonnotable company trying to bootstrap its own PR releases into sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion. You don't explain either Forbes or Techcrunch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supereditor1001 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The Forbes article is from one of their contributor blogs, which don't receive editorial oversight from Forbes, so it's not suitable for establishing notability. CrunchBase describes itself as "a crowdsourced database, so anyone can edit any profile," and the sole contributor to the TechCrunch page is listed as Qamar Zaman, which is the same name as the company's owner. If the company is notable and does do $100 million in business, surely there is some independent, third-party coverage of this. Trivialist (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, have to agree with Trivialist here. There's a dearth of independent reliable sources to show notability beyond passing mentions. Crow  Caw  00:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. In addition to the non-reliable sources identified by Trivialist, the recently added ref (http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1202643) is not verified by CNN and not sourced. As such, it also fails to establish notability. Piboy51 (talk) 15:23, 13 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.