Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revcontent

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revcontent

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

No real coverage. Everything is what the company says about itself-very puffy pieces-which are excluded under WP:ORGIND/WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:NCORP Galobtter. (pingó mió) 10:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (was ~~Weak~~ delete) The Forbes article would be a good start for WP:N except it's mainly an interview (so doesn't count as independent). Can't see how this passes WP:CORPDEPTH currently. Weak, as according to that article it sounds like a major player. Ping me if sources turn up, and I'll change to weak keep. Widefox; talk 16:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The forbes source is forbes contributor, meaning no editorial review - basically just curated blogging. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've marked the source as non-RS. Widefox; talk 19:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of WP:CORPDEPTH. Listings in generic funding announcements etc. do not qualify, nor 1 of large N listings like "Top 50 U.S. Digital Media Properties for <month><year>". Regarding Galobtter's comment, he is correct. This is documented at RSN if you look for forbes.com/sites, e.g. here and here and here. Forbes is listed at WP:Potentially unreliable sources for this reason. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NCORP, as the majority of the article is sourced to press releases or web articles that mention the subject in passing as part of a list of similar companies.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Galobtter. Note that most of these !voters (including me) came from the related case on WP:COIN. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:49, 15 January 2018 (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.