Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ToothPick (company)


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

ToothPick (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is a perfect example of unambiguous advertising or promotion. The page creator is a SPA. They only have 5 employees listed on their company Linkedin profile. Does not meet GNG. Sonstephen0 (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: Sources which could be added to the page 1, 2, 3, 4 - may not be suitable, 5. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although the article is written in a slightly promotional tone, this is something which could be easily edited out and the article is definitely not unambiguous advertising or promotion, as it is not unambiguous: (who is not not the page creator) reverted your addition of the speedy deletion tag on the grounds that it was not unambiguous. They only have 5 employees listed on their company Linkedin profile. isn't a valid reason for deletion: First employees are not required to link themselves to a company via Linkedin and even then Wikipedia does not use Linkedin stats to determine notability. Just because an account is an SPA, does not mean that the article should be deleted. I think that this article does meet WP:GNG, as it has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject from some of the sources above (some are not reliable) and those already on the article. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Nope. Please read WP:ORGIND - "independent" specifically excludes articles which are PR (I mean, the Cambridge News article is even labelled as an "Advertisement Feature", the Chesterfirst article has no attributed journalist and is obviously another ad, etc). Can you point to any two references you believe meets the criteria for establishing notability? Thank you.  HighKing++ 16:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Advert for a company. Fails WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funky Snack (talk • contribs) 13:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg  jhp  jm  09:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 16:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete advert. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Startup hype lacking independent RS.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete- advertising. Wikipedia is not a billboard. Reyk <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 12:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.