Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QuoteWizard

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. Nobody contests deletion.  Sandstein  07:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QuoteWizard

QuoteWizard (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)

I frankly would've PRODed but it may simply be drive-by removed so here we are; my own searches are finding nothing else but PR and trivial coverage which is essentially what this exact article is, the awards are also trivial themselves, basically expected for a starting company like this. SwisterTwister talk 19:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- typical advertorial on an unremarkable private company. Coverage does not meet COPRDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't view the article as being an advertorial. The article does not use promotional language, peacock language, extol the benefits of the company, and does not encourage readers to do business with it. Sometimes when articles state accomplishments that have been realized, it is a credible claim of significance or importance. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I trimmed the article of the unreliably cited material and the article is in A7 territory. The only claims to notability are minor awards; both of which are trivial. One of the awards is given out by a dubious industry group:

Earlier in its life, QuoteWizard was listed on the Deloitte Fast 500, the Fortune Inner City 100.^[1][2] It also won a 2013 Leader award from the Leads Council industry group.^[3]

My searches do not turn up anything better than what's in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2016 (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.