Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZURB

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ZURB

(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. Blogs written on popular media. References are link of profile on various website. No significant coverage by independent media. 14 Employee and not public company. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment look like they should be notable, though the article tone is promotional and the references are largely passing with nothing much about the company. If kept, this will need culling to about a paragraph or two - David Gerard (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all of the listed sources are PR in that they advertise the company's business and activities and what there is to say about it; there's no inherited or automatic notability from simply having the source be a major news source, as that's simply a shoehorn attempt at establishing "news". This company's environment is PR and that's what the sources are: PR. SwisterTwister talk 02:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think there is significant enough coverage in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. See TechCrunch, Venture Beat, PC World, and InfoQ. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The PC World cite literally does not mention Zurb. Why do you list that as evidence of notability of this topic? - David Gerard (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because it's about Notable, which is an application developed by ZURB. This and this are also about ZURB/Notable. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's still not evidence of Zurb's notability. It might count as evidence Notable was. But it doesn't at all serve the purpose you put it forward as serving - David Gerard (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Feel free to disregard the PC World source. There are still plenty of other WP:RS that cover this company, including the sources I listed above. Poking around Google now, I'm finding more, like this and this. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources offered are unconvincing. Mercury News is rather routine, "local company does good" coverage, with content such as:

ZURB employees spent 24 hours last week literally working day and night to complete a marketing campaign for a local nonprofit. “Our team really fell in love with their mission,” said Daniel Codella, part of ZURB’s marketing team.

Thenextweb.com is a bloggy sources lacking WP:AUD.

I would not consider this to be sufficient RS to establish notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; the article exists to promote the business and deliver products & services information. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see enough coverage at the moment to write an article per WP:WHYN. There is some coverage in tech blogs about the products (some are literally brief product reviews with quotes by the employees), but these should be discounted per WP:INHERITORG as well as the relative overcoverage the tech blogs give to these companies. I don't see any references in mainstream media which is surprising. The dept of coverage is missing here. The article is also promotional, so this is a delete per WP:NOTPROMO as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:46, 4 October 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.