Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vertic


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 03:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Vertic

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nonnotable software company. The only claim of notablitity is some obscure award from some magazine which is now dead and was not even from this industry, i.e., cannot be authority. -M.Altenmann >t 18:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep Meets WP:NCORP. Company is not a software company as nom suggests, but a digital advertising company. -- Sam Sing! 00:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No it does not meet WP:CORP. Press releases are not counted towards "significant independent coverage". -M.Altenmann >t 10:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- an advertising company (not a software company as stated in nom) which has significant coverage in independent reliable sources such as multiple articles in Berlingske Tidende], , . Press releases and promotional should be removed. (This is a typical problem with these marketing firms because they tend to market themselves a lot.) But this company does appear to meet WP:NCORP. — Cactus Writer (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 04:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:55, 9 February 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.