Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automated Ticket Broker Solutions

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Ticket Broker Solutions

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

Article is essentially unsourced, the two supposed sources being press releases. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added more sources from public accessbile information.Caiapfas (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources added confirm it exists, which is not in dispute. They provide no evidence of WP:NOTABILITY. Please also remember that paid editing must be disclosed. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't paid a dime, just stupid to the ways or WikiPedia...will not add anymore logos without the companies permission. more on it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pinkbeast#Automated_Ticket_Broker_Solutions Caiapfas (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – In my opinion, it does offer WP:NOTABILITY, just like the articles of TicketNetwork or TicketsNow. Within the secondary ticketing market, this company along with the others I'll be adding (Ticket Summit, Ticket News, Work Ticket conference and more) are all big deals, plus the media reports on these companies and the happenings within the secondary ticketing market all the time. I can provide proof of these news stories if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caiapfas (talk • contribs) 21:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORP, with no substantive, independent coverage of this organization. The sources cited are clearly just press releases and thus non-independent sources. We need more than the standard trivial mentions and proof of existence to keep an article. GAB^gab 00:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are not enough reliable secondary sources with significant coverage to help satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:02, 9 November 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.