Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gadget Flow (2nd nomination)

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. slakr^\ talk / 04:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Gadget Flow

)

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

Non notable advertisement like article created by an SPA who edit like a pro, undoubtedly not a new user. The references are highly promotional primary sources, press release and insignificant. Previously deleted via a

Draft - Mar11 (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Changing my Keep to a comment per Mar11 (talk) on sources like CNN. While CNN is definitely a reliable source and clearly has editorial oversight the article seems to be more based on a release. See my note below on getting this over to the DRAFT.JanisWilloughby (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Multiple reliable sources (huffington post, the next web, fortune, CNN and several others) to support.JanisWilloughby (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin:

XfD

.

Comment - This CNN and the Huffington Post articles are duplicate of each other. Which means it is either a press release or a paid news. This highly promotional piece of article is asking readers to visit their website because they are recruiting new persons in their company. It can't be an independent source. - Mar11 (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of the history of this article, in its present version it is well sourced and well written. I believe it passes the
~~notability guidelines, especially according to this reference. Bradv 03:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)~~[reply
]

Comment - I think you're right. Mar11 (talk) good eye on digging in to the sources. I'm going to get this content over to the DRAFT version. And await secondary sources. Since you're interested in the page I'll ping you and one of these other editors for a review before it goes live. Plan? JanisWilloughby (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The source is a highly promotional

WP:INTERVIEW. Not acceptable for notability or as an RS. - Mar11 (talk

)

Delete. After further consideration, I am changing my !vote. I was willing to forgive the poor behaviour because the article looked good, but on further investigation it appears to be a ruse. The other commenters are correct - the sources are all interviews or press releases. Bradv 02:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. A typical "startup blurb" on an
run-of-the-mill business with no indications of notability or significance. 06:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)K.e.coffman (talk
)

Comment - plenty of indications with coverage somewhat organized | here JanisWilloughby (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was canvassed to vote "keep" on this article (diff) by
talk) 20:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Same as Waggie above, I was
talk) 10:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Sources are promotional (Greek CNN, Huffington Post, etc.) or primary (interviews e.g. The Next Web). Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The sources are apparently press releases, so there is no RS for notability DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - DGG ( talk ) see above on Mar11's good eye on this. I might ping you on this one if I see other RS come out. Maybe just "too soon" though the site isn't a small deal at 15m views/mo. It's on its way to being eBay, seemingly. And I do think I wrote this well.JanisWilloughby (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On second thought why don't we just flag it for possible / not possibly meeting the Notability Guideline? I don't think they update their press page. Gnews shows other more recent media and then there appears to be ongoing converage, for example on December 2nd: [1]. Flag it?JanisWilloughby (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm seeing Forbes here [2] Suggest flagging vs delete.JanisWilloughby (talk) 01:26, 21 December 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.