Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ReputationDefender
- 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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ReputationDefender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable, Promotional, References are press releases Treedel (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but I don't feel strongly about this article. I earlier declined a speedy deletion request for this article and today removed the prod template because I didn't see a basis for deletion. Some of the sources in the article are promotional, but it looks to me like there is solid 3rd-party coverage to impart notability. The New York Post article is about this company and looks to be a genuine journalist-written piece, not a press release. The Newsweek article is also genuine third-party coverage, and the company's involvement with the Nikki Catsouras case indicates some societal importance. Yes, the article is written like an advert, but that's a reason to improve it, not a reason to delete it. --Orlady (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When I read the Newsweek article, I see two mentions in three pages; That article is about the Catsouras. The NYP article is mostly direct quotations from Fertik, putting it closer to a press release than an independently researched article. Treedel (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I just did a quick Google search, and found articles in Wired and the Washington Post. The Wired piece looks like it was based on a press release, but it's not limited to press-release content. The Washington Post story looks like solid journalism. There are also minor mentions in two other Washington Post stories: [1] and [2]. --Orlady (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I got some additional solid hits when I searched for "Reputation Defender" as two words, but I think I've made the point that the company is notable. --Orlady (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wired bit reads like a press release, and the Post articles are all about internet reputation management. I'd support a merge into Online reputation management article, but having good PR doesn't in itself make a company notable. Treedel (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I got some additional solid hits when I searched for "Reputation Defender" as two words, but I think I've made the point that the company is notable. --Orlady (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I just did a quick Google search, and found articles in Wired and the Washington Post. The Wired piece looks like it was based on a press release, but it's not limited to press-release content. The Washington Post story looks like solid journalism. There are also minor mentions in two other Washington Post stories: [1] and [2]. --Orlady (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've seen the company profiled on at least two different networks also. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2009 (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.