Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haystack TV

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. Joyous! | Talk 03:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haystack TV

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

Deleted once before as advertising and suggestive paid advertising at that, and it was now contested with the sole basis of "Haystack TV is a company that has a service I use. This is a popular service with a strong online presence. The article was well done and I had contributed some edits" which is not only unconvincing but it's not showing how the past concerns of both advertising and the overfocus with advertising can be fixed, if at all. The author account is now confirmed as using other accounts and thus is no longer active, and the article had no other contributors; my own searches are not finding anything but trivial PR.

The listed sources here consist of also what the company would have for its own advertising, not only are the sources repeated perhaps to enhance the illusion of sources, but sources such as TechCrunch and literally other local PR-publishers, notorious for republishing the company's own words, are not convincing for any notability or substance, and we should not mistake them as otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- typical "minor-tech-startup spam". No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does not show WP:ORG notability and the writing suggests the possibility of WP:COI. Frankly, the plethora of self-congratulatory comments about scoring $1.7m in private equity suggests this is a very small fish.--Rpclod (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SUSTAINED. The few sources available on Google and Google news are more about what the topic might be than what already exists. The edit notice states, "commenting on other users rather than the article is...considered disruptive." Unscintillating (talk) 01:12, 27 November 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.