Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zappzter

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. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zappzter

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

Not notable. No references from reliable or verifiable sources that are independent of the subject. No GNews/Book hits. GHits consist of self-published, social media, and download sites. Probable sock / meatpuppet involvement, see here. Previously CSD'd A7/G11. Current CSD tag (A7/G11) removed by SPA. GregJackP Boomer! 01:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the request for removing this article, florida sun biz states that Zappzter is a limited liability company, and Zappzte IM is their trademark. What kind of references do you suggest there should be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leslienielsen (talk • contribs) 01:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC) — Leslienielsen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Notability in Wikipedia has to be established by reliable or verifiable sources that are independent of the subject. The mere existence of the company is not sufficient. Reliable sources are typically newspapers, books, journal articles, etc., that discuss the company in depth and in multiple sources. This article does not have those, nor could I find any in a Google search. You can click on any of the blue links for a description of Wikipedia policy in that area. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 02:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A government agency is much more reliable than a random internet source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike0913 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC) — Mike0913 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The fact that a company is registered with the government proves that the company exists. It doesn't establish anything about the notability of the company, though. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like an obvious attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion by two single-purpose accounts, one of which would seem to have an obvious conflict of interest while the other is an obvious username violation. Then there's the meat-puppetry. Beyond all of that (in terms of the stuff that actually counts), there wouldn't seem to be anything available to substantiate notability. Certainly no significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources that I was able to find. Stalwart111 02:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage from secondary sources. The company merely exists. The creators are confused as to why we include articles about companies here. We document notability, not expand it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 05:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence found of attained notability, either in terms of the company or its software. AllyD (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Speaking as original CSD tagger. Ignatz mice•talk 06:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, likely promotional. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Insufficient (virtually nonexistent) coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, lack of evidence of encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 02:41, 3 September 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.