Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleep.com

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 keep. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bleep.com

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

Not notable. Advertising. Philafrenzy (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, perhaps weakly. Promotional tone can be corrected by copy editing. Source examples include:

The Evening Standard
Billboard
The Wire
Playground magazine (about the source)
Design Week (about the source)
PC Advisor (short review)

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep entirely per Northamerica1000 who's found well sourced info, Also AFD isn't used as a clean up solution either!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:37, 7 February 2014 (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.