Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ResDiary

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ResDiary

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Manila Times, Philippine Star and Herald Scotland citations are all reliable sources providing significant coverage. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Both the Manila Times and Philippine Star only state they have a local tie up in Philippines and plan to offer there services there. Herald Scotland piece is a interview with the founder.There is nothing that is a significant coverage only routine news coverage news coverage most of the other pieces are not WP:RS are about tieup ,cancellation technology , company has 15 employees and appears to upcoming company at this point a case of WP:TOOSOON at best ,the company size and turnover is not signficant .This is a paid article to promote the company.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. I agree with Pharaoh of the Wizards that the references fail the criteria for establishing notability and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH as no significant sourcing has been established. Per Pharaoh, interviews with a member of the company or information from user-generated websites does not qualify as adequate sources for establishing notability.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the ideal policies we use here are WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Not advocacy at all costs, and above anything else; should there be chances of an article, saving unacceptable certainly isn't the solution. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 16 October 2017 (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.