Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SureID

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) 12:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SureID

SureID (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I had specified the concerns with my PROD but it seems there was a malfunction in saving it so the information was never listed; everything listed here is simply either PR intiated by or for the company itself, the article heavily focuses with things only the company would care to mention, and that's what the my searches are also finding. When a company literally has to simply focus heavily with its own company activities and supporting them by either its own words or republished PR using PR websites (as it is the Business Journals can never be taken seriously since all its actions ever are is simply fluffing PR and republishing company-supplied words), it shows they only want to advertise, also notice two obvious company employee accounts, Jeff97205 and Jtdamis. Of course the fact the PR awards that were cared to be mentioned were advertising and are therefore unconvincing, the other sources are essentially following this also by simply repeating what only their clients and investors would be avid to know. SwisterTwister talk 18:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom all sourcing I could find was similarly local, semi-sponsored or both. Perhaps others will fare better - David Gerard (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as creator. Also, unless the nominator works for these publications, how do they "know" the authors just repeated what the organization is saying. Not to mention, where in the GNG does it say that if all an author does is repeat what the sources say, then suddenly there can be no notability? It does not, because this is how news general works. Now, if all the sources lacked a byline for an author, then you would have something, but I think all of the articles have an author byline. Frankly, none of the "criteria" listed by the nominator actually exists in GNG, it is just that editor's opinion. In the end, there are multiple sources over several years (and there are more recent ones) about this entity by a variety of news outlets. The "local" sources are not local, but are regional newspapers. If one wants to remove certain portions, that is fine, but AfD is not for clean-up. Aboutmovies (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:PROMO with a good dose of WP:TNT, due to excessive intricate detail. Wikipedia is not an office directory and not a WP:WEBHOST for a corp web site; sample content:

• Eid’s new 72,000-square-foot (6,700 m2) headquarters are along the Sunset Highway in a three-story brick building that formerly housed an office of Credence Systems Corporation. ... Etc.

Delete; offers no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and recommend closing this Afd. Saving promotional and PR material only goes against the efforts of editors building an encyclopedia. I'll have no prejudice against a speedy recreation provided and only provided the material qualifies as RS and the contents as non-PR. But I don't see that happening. Lourdes 06:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As failing WP:DEPTH; agree that this appears to be a regurgitation of company PR and consequently little more than churnalism. _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:18, 25 October 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.