Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talkholiday


 * 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. Press releases by a company generally don't add to notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Talkholiday

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is based primarily on press releases seeded by the firm (aka churnalism). None of the sources represents any independent overview of the subject itself. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards,  KC Velaga   ✉  14:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards,  KC Velaga   ✉  14:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards,  KC Velaga   ✉  14:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep The article subject satisfies WP:ORGIN i.e. the organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. Further, per WP:GNG, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Disclosure: article creator. Daicaregos (talk) 08:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources do not support this. The sources are merely press releases. Incidentally, can you explain why I've found a few articles you wrote which have subsequently been puffed up by an easily identifiable individual who is the PR for the subjects? That's a bizarre coincidence. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I approached the PR to ask if they would provide a copyright-free image for Joe Calzaghe, which they did. I subesquently found some companies on their site who looked interesting (and notable) and created articles on them. Seems the PR decided to 'improve' the articles. Daicaregos (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * One of the references is an interview. Daicaregos (talk) 07:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * delete Trivial and promotional.TheOverflow (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. If this is kept it'll get culled to a stub on sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2016 (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.