Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campaign Monitor

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. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign Monitor

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

I would've honestly PRODed but it's quite likely it will be restarted as advertising once again, and it's clear tihs (along with the 2012 deleted article) only exists as advertising for the company itself since that's exactly what the information and sources emulate, not only then considering the sheer PR blatancy; also, to actually specify, the NYT is in fact a 2-time minor mention part of an investing campaign so that's all there is to say about it. When an article has to so blatantly emphasize this, especially the fact of barreling the "clients" list in the first sentence, that's damning enough as it is, worse when we apply WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 18:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the mention of the clients is very WP:SOAP, and the source is a Press Release on Business Wire. As SwisterTwister said WP:NOT. Ferrari250 (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - biased and disruptive nomination. Notable topic, suitable sources. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
week delete It is one of the known platform for Email marketing though. Leave apart how the article is covered, but covered by notable media brands. It is written by close one (doubt) or the tone of article or even the intend of writing this article makes it questionable. (Changed my view on others comments). Light2021 (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SPAM and nom Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The NYT is a mention, and the WSJ item a mere notice. There is no reason to expect there would be anything significant for a company like this, and th eat is indeed the case. "One of the known platforms" is an argument from ITEXISTS. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The NYTimes is one sentence of coverage. The other one is a WSJ blog, not a staff report. The best I could find was this in the AFR but that is not enough. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2016 (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.