Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sourcebits

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. Secret ^account 23:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Sourcebits

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

Completing nomination on behalf of Minskdreamer, who posted the following rationale on the article's talk page. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The sources accompanying are not reliable enough as they are self-published (4 out of six links are to the company's own website). Besides violating WP:NCORP it looks like an attempt to promote a company WP:SELFPROMOTE WP:ADVERT Minskdreamer (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising (G11). That is, unless they're somehow much more notable than they appear. Even a client list really should have an independent citation. §everal⇒|Times 13:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

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.