Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Echobox

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. Sandstein 21:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Echobox

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Delete Non-notable company. Self promoting article - subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Misterpottery (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These two references establish notability: http://mediashift.org/2017/10/intelligent-analytics-coming-publishing/ and https://www.bbc.com/news/business-36837824 are enough to establish notability. They discuss the company in reasonable depth in the context of larger issues. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This reference from MediaShift is also good. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sourcing does not meet new and improved WP:NCORP; it's in passing and / or WP:SPIP. Mediashift is closer to what's needed, but it's still WP:TOOSOON. The company has not achieved anything significant just yet. Just a promotional directory listing at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing fails WP:NCORP, which sets a significantly higher standard for sourcing than the GNG because of the promotionalism rampant in this area. The BBC source is okay, and while the Mediashift one is moving in the right direction, on the whole, I don't think weighing all the factors this gets to what NCORP is asking us to do: ignore material that isn't substantial or is designed to promote. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2018 (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.