Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyword (3rd nomination)

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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skyword

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

promotional article for non-notable firm; started as a draft by an spa, accepted by an Orangemoody sock. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - previously deleted, not much has changed since then. Connection to Orangemoody just makes this worse. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt -- two AfDs with "delete" and "no consensus" results. The content is strictly advertorial, as in: "The Skyword content marketing platform was built to help companies that wish to produce and disseminate their own content for the purpose of new customer acquisition!" Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. References fail criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nom's and Smallbone's analysis. The sources consist of casual mentions and routine local business coverage. The NYT article of 9/8/14 might help towards establishing notability, but does not all by itself. No other sources found. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:52, 7 July 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.