Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DadLabs

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DadLabs

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable and it seems the company has never received notable news coverage as shown by Google News. The only links I have found are either primary or simply videos, the only link I found that wasn't primary or videos was this blog which would provide minimal support for this article. SwisterTwister talk 01:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. All links are self-referential, except one which is supposed to confirm that they won an award but actually does not even mention the company that I could find. Here's how promotional it is: "DadLabs is most likely searching for their own corporate backing/acquisition. With this financial boost, DadLabs would be able to increase its reached market through an enhanced advertising strategy, thus making it a major player in the realm of fatherhood resource sites." In other words: please buy this company! --MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's gotten some attention by way of the sources I've added to the article and it even got a Webby nod at one point (but didn't win), but there just isn't enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to show that this website has notability. It's fairly close to where I'd say it'd be notable, but there just isn't enough coverage at this time to merit an article. Most of the sources I discovered were primary sources or are sources that aren't considered to be reliable per Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:WEB criteria. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.