Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PayPerPost

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. Randykitty (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PayPerPost

PayPerPost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Promotional article about a non-notable company. Jehochman ^Talk 00:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• worked on existing citations — I've templated the citations in the article, including rescuing deadlinks using archive sites. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has coverage in reliable sources such as The Los Angeles Times. Does the nominator have a COI of working for rival companies ? Im asking due to the information on his userpage. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response The test for notabilty is not "coverage in reliable sources". It is in-depth independent coverage with original analysis/opinion (at least 2 references). None of the references (including the LA Times) meets this test. The LA Times reference consists of a series of mentions-in-passing with information provided by the company or their "posties". HighKing⁺⁺ 15:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you using VPN to read that as its not available in Europe? and have you looked for additional sources ? Atlantic306 (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, not using a VPN, available on archive.org and I am unable to locate any additional sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL. No, but nice try at the ad homienem. There are thousands of tiny marketing agencies and websites like this one. None of them are notable. Getting a few mentions in the press doesn’t establish notability. Jehochman ^Talk 20:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, most are mentions-in-passing or unreliable blogs or routine announcements, topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH not found; what comes up is passing mentions, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2019 (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.