Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WebpageFX, Inc.

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WebpageFX, Inc.

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

Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor. Does not site media references but random links to uncountable achievements. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Light2021 (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the WP:REFBOMBing, this is mostly press-releases, press-releasey or trivial passing mentions - David Gerard (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as the article itself goes to specifications about not only the company's business but what there is to say about it inside, including of its work environment and employees; that is by far PR and that's what's accompanied by the sources, PR and what there is to advertise about the company. SwisterTwister talk 02:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I cannot find enough substantial coverage in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough RS, corporate spam. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:00, 23 September 2016 (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.