Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StickerYou

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 no consensus to delete. I'm not feeling like trying to figure out to a mathematical certainty whether this should be filed under "no consensus" or "keep". Either way, it's not going away. T. Canens (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StickerYou

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

Can't find any sources which aren't directly or indirectly fueled by company's strong PR campaign. Non-notable. TransporterMan (TALK) 20:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The Globe and Mail article referenced in the article sounds pretty convincing of notability. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 20:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clearly a PR piece masquerading as a news article, but even if it is a RS, one's not enough to preserve the article. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertisement for a non-notable Internet business, 2008 startup. The Globe and Mail article is a puff piece about a local startup, and does not establish that this business has done anything that should be memorialized for the ages in an encyclopedia. Other references are to Top 100 lists and the like. I found nothing better. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TransporterMan - we want to make this article in-keeping with the standards of Wikipedia. What would you recommend we add to the article. StickerYou was noted as the Start-up of the Day by Microsoft ( http://www.bizspark.com/Blogs/Microspark-BizSpark-Startup-of-the-Day/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=264) and recently written up by Read Write Web (http://www.readwriteweb.com/biz/2011/02/bridging-online-and-offline-ma.php) their Stickers have also been featured in Ad week ( http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/oh-you-will-these-facebook-stickers-130731). Please let me know what other material we need to add to make this a legit article in your eyes. Stickers fan (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's others [1] [2] [3] - frankieMR (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – In addition to the coverage in The Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star already identified, there is this article in the National Post; it's enough coverage for the general notability guideline. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like the sources turned up by frankieMR and Paul Erik demonstrate that they satisfy WP:CORP. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I was hesitant before but the review from the National Post is really solid - frankie (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this notable, really? No! Guinness2702 (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2011 (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.