Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SurePayroll


 * 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   no consensus.  Sandstein  06:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

SurePayroll

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Seems to fail WP:CORP. The only independent coverage consists of brief quotations from company officials, which are excluded by that guideline as indicators of WP notability. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The article relies way too heavily on press releases, but there appears to be a handful of examples of significant coverage in third party sources ranging from Mobile Commerce Daily to Crain's. I am, however, unable to determine with total certainty whether or not the Crain's piece is a press release. If it is, then my vote might swiftly move in the opposite direction. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  03:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —I Jethrobot (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Yet another online payroll provider advertising on Wikipedia.  No showing of historical, technical, or cultural significance.  An unremarkable business that may well do its unremarkable tasks well, but not one for the history books.  Press releases and routine announcements in trade periodicals do not make a case for notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 17:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Although, I'm voting keep it's solely because I believe the article can be rewritten to a more Wikipedia-suitable tone. If the article doesn't improve though, I'll change my vote. SwisterTwister   talk  21:52, 17 July 2011 (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.