Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tongal

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tongal

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

This company does not appear to meet WP:CORP criteria for inclusion. Valiant attempt at sourcing, although some sources don't even mention the company, others give it a trivial mention. One source mentions it more than a couple times. Deleted twice previously. Prod removed by article creator (self-identified as Frank Chiera, who works for a PR firm; Tongal is one of its clients). ~Amatulić (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are there, particularly interviews at the Huffington Post and CNBC, also articles at PC Magazine and adweek. It appears that the company has generated sufficient buzz in national media. The jargon-laden article could use a rewrite into plain English. --MelanieN (talk) 03:00, 20 September 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, Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 08:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Buzz" generated by the launch of a website does not automatically convert into lasting encyclopedic notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:37, 20 September 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, BusterD (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources giving significant coverage have been found by MelanieN. And WP:NTEMP states "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." It doesn't have to prove it has any lasting effect. It gets coverage, so its fine. Dream Focus 09:41, 30 September 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.