Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SerpLogic

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SerpLogic

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

No indication of notability. Despite claims to the contrary that I removed, the company has not been the subject of any significant media coverage; the best we have is the founder being quoted on SEO, not a discussion of the company itself. Huon (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Huon There is not enough in depth coverage. The best I could find was an aditional source with some coverage on the company ( http://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/16/154045.html ), but is mostly about its SEO recomendations and not much about the company itself. It may help, but is not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. --Rogerx2 (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Fails WP:GNG. And WP:CORP. (Is interesting to note the series of edits leading to the article's creation. Though perhaps coincidental, they look similar to patterns typically seen in cases of paid-editing. In which a user account is created, the account makes a series of otherwise unrelated/innocuous edits, waits a few weeks, is marked autoconfirmed, and then makes paid-for edits). Ignoring the means of the article's creation however, the subject of the article's content still fails the expected inclusion criteria. No value to the project in retaining. Only value is to the subject SEO-company's SEO rankings. Guliolopez (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article lacks notable content and sources. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG -- HighKing⁺⁺15:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:CORP. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:39, 8 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.