Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audicus

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) 06:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Audicus

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

My extensive PROD was boldly removed with the thin basis of adding a source but my concerns were staunchly listed and clear in that, not only was this a company-initiated article, it contains anything and everything a company would want to say to advertise its company and, as we know, what the company wants and what an encyclopedia article should have never meet as they are entirely different states of mind and philosophies, and will never compromise because they are not easy matters and they never will be since advertising and non-PR are completely different. All sources are, of course, simply trivial and unconvincing PR and none of it comes to confidently substantiate convincing notability; I still confirm my PROD because they are genuine concerns and this should never have been accepted from AfC because of these advertising campaign concerns. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete all coverage in soi-disant RSes appears to be part of promotional pushes (GNews also brings up the matching press releases). They work hard at promotion, but nobody seems to have actually found them newsworthy without the company pushing for coverage - David Gerard (talk) 10:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete publicity puff piece for company, supported by nothing better than minor mentions. No hint of notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; nothing but an advertisement with language such as: "...an e-commerce startup offering lower-priced, high-quality hearing aids by eliminating intermediaries". K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 7 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.