Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roomsurf

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 speedy delete. WP:SNOW and WP:G11. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roomsurf

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

Yet another non-notable web-based business, with an article propped up by press releases, passing mentions, and directory listings. PROD tagged, but tagged pulled by an IP on the grounds that a couple of passing mentions in newspapers are sufficient: they're not. Calton | Talk 00:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - currently a very poor, promotional article based primarily on the company's website and press releases. The local Orlando Sentinel article gives (just about) reasonable coverage, while the more distant news sources mention Roomsurf only briefly in the context of other available roommate matching options. There's this article too in the NYT, but it may not be the sort of coverage Roomsurf want to be reminded of! Sionk (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Promo-SPAM 173.13.150.22 (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't really even try to claim notability unless you count the claim of number of users, and even if you do that number is self-cited. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The present article is dependent on press releases,and listings on college web sites. And of course there's the nYT article. That it is not mentioned in this article is further proof that anyone who tries to conceal things by this kind of editing will be very foolish. I recognize people have gotten away with this sort of thing in the past, but I hope we're getting more vigilant. Even after a number of other articles from this editor were deleted for promotionalism, they contributed this one; that should have served as warnings, so I have given them a level 4 warning for promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 6 January 2013 (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.