Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CakeMail

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CakeMail[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH not found. What comes up is passing mentions, directory listings or PR-driven. Google books search produces a short case study (link), but its about the company's use of Twitter, not about the company itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for WP:SOFTDELETE as has been unsuccessfully prodded.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing (I agree with the logic; current sourcing is weak. I havent personally looked for sources though) Martinp (talk) 02:50, 24 July 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.