Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treatstock


 * 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. Promotional content; without notability. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 06:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Treatstock

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article about company whose notability is not established. Most of the references appear to be paid references, directory entries, or the company's own web site.

The history shows that the author (probably the CEO of the company) submitted a draft to AFC more than once, and it was declined each time, so chose to move it to article space. AFD is the appropriate forum to consider notability of articles in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep but no objection to delete. I had noticed the promotional tone myself, and I spent some time removing the fluff because I thought the article was salvageable. The references, while restricted to trade publications, do seem like reliable sources for their purpose, and I doubt that they are paid references as the nominator alleges. On the other hand, I have never agreed with the concept of notability being conferred solely by coverage in niche trade press; I prefer to see broader coverage. On the Gripping Hand, our notability guideline WP:CORP doesn't mention excluding trade publications (I have advocated that it should, in the past), so I admit I can't find a policy-based reason to delete if the sources are indeed deemed reliable. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I myself reviewed this and found nothing to suggest imaginably better now and I'm not seeing anything else convincing.  SwisterTwister   talk  19:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Promotional tone. &mdash; Music1201  talk  21:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not anymore, and that by itself isn't a reason to delete if the prose can be made more neutral. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

In response to the feedback for the article, I have made every effort to not make it sound promotional in nature. I recently signed up to Treatstock and sell my models on there and I noticed there is nothing on Wikipedia and wanted to write something about it. I feel this article about the site is helpful and insightful for people of wikipedia and contains information that best reflects what the site is all about. ~Daimand (talk)14:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete because too promotional. Tom29739 [ talk ] 00:38, 2 May 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.