Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FutureMarketer

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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FutureMarketer

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

This has been speedy deleted once, but recreated again, so I am sending this to AfD. The subject is a Singapore based company founded in 2015. I see no credible claim of significance. Neither do I see any evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH as none of the references available cover the company in detail. In fact, some of them only quote certain people associated with the company. I also think this is WP:TOOSOON. Not to mention that the article is hopelessly promotional as well. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm seeing 2 credible claims of significance, the partnership with the school, and being featured in Forbes. Adam9007 (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I myself speedied this and I still confirm it since none of this applies for any convincing notability, a newly started company still gaining momentum thus not yet notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficiently sourced corporate puff. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No adequate notability. The efs are essentiall promotional. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a one year old marketing company trying to market itself on Wikipedia. As for the claim by Adam9007 that the company was "featured in Forbes", that is incorrect. One of their employees got briefly quoted in Forbes, and the company was namechecked. That is many miles away from any sort of "feature" of the company, which would be a major article about the company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dcirovic (talk) 16:44, 18 June 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.