Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BuyerZone

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) 22:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BuyerZone

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

A highly promotional pages on an unremarkable private business. The article is sourced to online directories, passing mentions or otherwise unsuitable sources. Significant RS coverage not found. The article has been dePROD'ed with the suggestion that the story in Fox Business represented significant coverage: Help for Small Businesses Getting Office Equipment This article does not strike me as sufficiently independent, with copy such as:

"'A lot of businesses undertaking the purchasing process have to do a lot of comparison research and shopping around,' said Steve Gottlieb, vice president of product management at BuyerZone. 'That’s the pain point we’re trying to alleviate.'" Etc.

This looks more like a product placement. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per K.e.coffman... seems promotional. Sources are not significant. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article sourced to listings, blogs, passing mention and routine announcements. There is brief coverage on
notability during its independent existence. AllyD (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Hell fire and damnation - The only thing keeping this away from G11 is that I don't feel like spending the time looking through all ~40 revisions on the off chance one of them is at all acceptable. The company may be notable, but the article needs attention from an explosives expert.
TimothyJosephWood 12:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, promo piece and fails
WP:Corp for notability. Kierzek (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The FBC piece mentioned in the lede is clearly a paid
chatter) 23:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: this spam. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed most of the junk. Still fails
-- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:18, 25 May 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.