Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BizEquity

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. Kurykh (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BizEquity

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

This article appears to be WP:SPAM. It was developed in August by a WP:SPA (see Acaetano18's special contributions).

The content is based on the business's own promotional material and one article from a ezine I don't believe to be WP:RS, only WP:V (see the ezine's about us page. I fail to see how this company meets WP:GNG. Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: there are a number of external links to various journals carrying articles/mentions of this business but, having checked them, at least one is a pay-for press release site. Other links are very much peripheral online blogs (even where associated with what appears to be an RS, it's in the blog sphere of the journal's online presence) and self-starter promotions zines. There's only one link to the Financial Times I can't access (hit a paywall), but it really smacks of being reliant on minor mentions and paid promotional sites masquerading as articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did find this Philly Inquirier, same problem with the Financial Times paywall. Personally, I don't differentiate so hugely between blogs and news when they are hosted by major news outlets and written by professional journalists and clearly more than just opinion pieces. Also found this in American Banker. JTdale ^Talk 23:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I used the online search tools to explore these articles prior submitting this and, yes, admittedly there are mentions. The problem with the mentions is that they all end up being variants of the same promotional spiel by Carter. I did find a couple of references in books critiquing them amongst other such companies regarding the methodology, but they're pay-for only. If you read the article, it certainly reads as being promotional and would need a good clean-up. Other than that, I'm not convinced that it meets GNG but is in WP:OTHERSTUFF territory. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:- Mentions in forbes is a personal opinion and not a result of discussion. Article seems to be biased and my decision will be a NO for WP:SPAM.Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam. I found a bunch of routine announcements and press releases. Nothing satisfying WP:CORP. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. Metamagician3000 (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps there is an argument for notability [1], but the current article is so full of spam that it is honestly not even worth keeping.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:CORPDEPTH and article appears to violate TOU. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2014 (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.