Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ReputationDefender

ReputationDefender

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]

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. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]