Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vungle Inc.


 * 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. Also applying WP:SALT to match protection previously applied to Vungle. RL0919 (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Vungle Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This was flagged for speedy deletion, but has been contested. I think it's a straightforward WP:A7 case—just being sold for a large sum doesn't create notability if nobody talks about the sale, and the sources aren't what one would call great—but bringing it here in case anyone thinks it's salvageable. &#8209; Iridescent 12:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Added two more notable sources mentioning the deal, techcrunch and business insider. Not sure if it's notable enough. All ok if the decision is deletion, no probs :-) --Taiko (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  &#8209; Iridescent 12:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - When I see a page at AfD with an unnecessary disambiguation, it always make me do some digging. This shows that the page was deleted and then protected from creation as it was created by a blocked or banned user. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)--CNMall41 (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 17:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable company which fails WP:NCORP. DMySon (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2022 (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.