Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reputation911

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. → Call me Hahc21 03:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation911

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

Article creates the appearance of being properly sourced, when it isn't actually. The sources are all press releases, brief mentions, or articles about reputation management in general and not this firm specifically. Quick searches in Google News and Google Books for legitimate profile stories to meet WP:CORP come up empty. CorporateM (Talk) 23:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Easy search name, so results should be easy to repeat. I also found nothing on Google books and Google news. I saw no third-party independent sources on the first two pages of Google web. I also checked [site:businessweek.com reputation911], because investing.businessweek.com is, in my experience, fairly reliable as an indicator of wp:notability, but this firm is not listed. I also looked at most of the references in the article. Note that some of these, such as the ones from NYT and Washington Post, have older accessdates, because they were originally prepared for the [Reputation management] article, so don't expect to find Reputation911 listed in those references. There are a couple of press releases. The only third-party independent source I saw was the one from Green Bay, and there is certainly some WP:GNG significant coverage there, but not a lot. WP:Alternative outlets is suggested. Unscintillating (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial coverage outside Boston finance-related sources – which appear to be paid press releases. CrunchBase is okay, but not enough to establish notability. — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete press releases are no independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2014 (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.