Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YTView


 * 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

YTView

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article does cite a number of reliable sources that devote space to this website, but they were most likely written on behalf of the PR person for this website who also is probably responsible for this article. Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 00:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  00:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Sorry but I do not have any link with the subject, I have been getting information for weeks now, though about doing a WP:DRAFT but decided to post as an article directly since it has reliable sources. Accusing of WP:COI I find it very insulting. OGfromtheGut (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize if my assessment was incorrect. I often work on building articles of borderline notability and I can recognize and respect skill at squeezing the most out of reliable sources, but I do still favor deletion of this article. Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 09:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete for now at best as this is still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister   talk  02:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a company directory. Merely being (allegedly) connected with something notable does not infer notability. Shritwod (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Subject has no notability. The Huffington Post source is a blog piece; Wikipedia does NOT accept blogs as reliable sources. The Daily Dot source has a very small mention -- again -- no evidence of notability. I would also like to mention that The Daily Dot news site is borderline acceptable as a reliable source here at Wikipedia. None of the sources/references provided (which are unreliable), are about the subject, they are about the business of fake followers on social media. A small mention on one article does not constitute space for a Wikipedia article. This article is not encyclopedic, and should be removed. Still wondering how it got accepted in the first place.. Scorpion293 (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge or redirect with/to Viral marketing - per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. There does appear to be sources that discuss this company in-depth (I found this one) and its services and impact on social media and popularity (See, , , , , , ). I, however, am iffy on whether or not there's enough significant coverage on the company itself in order to warrant its own article, but the coverage on its services and impact on social networking is there and significant.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * SBwire, or any "press release" article, is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Also, none of those sources are about the subject, only mere mentions. These news sources would fit perfectly on the Social media marketing article. Like Shritwod mentioned, this is not a company directory.

I'm also beginning to believe there is a WP:COI here with the subject editing his own article, admins need to take a look at this. Scorpion293 (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no WP:COI involved, since if it has, I would have clarified it and/or state it.OGfromtheGut (talk) 23:53, 16 February 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.