Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pitchi.com

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. MBisanz ^talk 12:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pitchi.com

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

fails WP:CORP. created by a single purpose editor so suspect WP:ADVERT. gnews yields hardly anything. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP and written in a promotional tone. Ajf773 (talk) 07:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a website that operated for 2 years until August 2016. The given references are a brief mention in a Business Spectator piece about the results of its parent (which does not have an article, so not a redirect target) and a couple of items of start-up publicity about its pitch. My searches are not finding better, not even coverage of its closure. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Depends If the claim of world’s first video selling platform can be referenced independently and reliably then the subject matter is intrinsically notable hence a definite keep. If not then a merge/write into parent article, hence delete. I suggest not to be deleted until before the claim world’s first video selling platform is properly tested. Aoziwe (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the claim can be sourced, then an article can possibly be written, but there's no present evidence it's correct. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC) It seems unlkiely to me that nobody would have thought of the idea before 2014. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 13 December 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.