Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perion Codefuel

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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perion Codefuel

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

Promotional article for non notable software. Teh refs are either press reviews or mere notices. For example, ref 1, claimed to be a Reuters areticle , is marked by Reuters as a press release for which it is not responsible. As for the promotionalism,some examples: "The DisplayFuel network offers advertisers a variety of dynamic media channels to promote their products to millions of users across a range of geos"; "Both methods ensure lasting user engagement and monetization" (not to mention the obvious promotionalism involved in trying to write two articles with many of the same refs. on essentially the same subject from different aspects--when neither are really notable) DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - press releases do not make reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I attempted to stub it originally, but there was not even more than a couple sentences worth keeping and all of the reliable sources are actually news release reposts. CorporateM (Talk) 22:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I contemplated because of the sources but after searching for more sources, there wasn't much here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 17:24, 14 July 2015 (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.