Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuffnang

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. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 22:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nuffnang

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

Delete. No indication of company's notability. (According to WP:ORG: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.) Pure advertisement.--Palaeovia^talk 03:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep. Article has been restructured and edited to include references and full citations of coverage from local and international media. --Fresh026 (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the references that have been added are either from the company's website itself or the blogs of the founders and employees of the company. This article was created by and mostly maintained by employees of the company and is essentially an advertising outlet for them. For example: the user above advocating the non-deletion of this article Fresh026 is or is a former employee of the company. A previous prolific editor of the article Pinkytham is or is a former employee of the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.177.177 (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My Factiva-obtained collection of newspaper articles about Xiaxue (whom I am writing a GA on) includes several articles which discuss blog advertising and Nuffnang in detail. I encourage the nominator and others to do more research, to avoid a deletion that would worsen systemic bias against Asian topics. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a bibliography listing relevant sources. Otherwise you end up sounding like Joseph Smith with his golden plates. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Not properly transcluded. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. the article needs to be rewritten. It reads like promo material. 2. many references are from Nuffnang or their press releases. If those problems can be corrected, I would say keep. As it is? rewrite - specifically, depromo and obtain more and better references.Marikafragen (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - I would strongly encourage people looking at this article to read the secondary sources (what few there are) featured in this article. There are nothing but trivial mentions of the company. I couldn't find any significant coverage of them whatsoever that wasn't a PR piece. There is nothing to be salvaged here. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:47, 29 April 2012 (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.