Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YourBusinessChannel


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

YourBusinessChannel

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not establish notability, reads like an advert. ff m  15:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

String delete. The article contains no reliable sources establishing notability of yourBusinessChannel, and in fact most of the cited sources do not discuss yourBusinessChannel at all. I was not able to locate any reliable-source coverage, multiple searches turned up nothing but the blogs, press-releases, social networking sites, and of course the company's own site. --Clubjuggle T/ C 16:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Scientizzle 16:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I am gathering the authorative sources to meet the editorial requirments.

There will be many including stories from major UK Media Outlets such as the Scotsman and Daily Telegraph, in both the print and online publications.

I am doing all I can to ensure that the page is up to spec. Can we please hold off deletion while I collect and post these reference materials? --Catweezel1200 (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added new references to the article. While I will continue to collect and add more reference material, I hope these meet the reliable-source coverage criteria you are concerned about. Catweezel1200 (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wizardman  17:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Now there's some sources, but stil written much like an ad. Jon How's the weather? - talk about me behind my back 18:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * delete - obvious advert --T-rex 19:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * comment - it could be salvaged if anyone took the time to do so, but unfortunately it's still a bit of an advertisement; most of the sources are to the section describing why online media is important, which is pretty much irrelevant to the article (and should be cut in a salvaged version). The purpose of the article isn't to sell the service to us. If there are reliable sources about the company itself I would argue to keep, but as it is I only saw the Forbes and Entrepreneur sources, both of which are basically blogs. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:53, 24 August 2008 (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.