Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campaign Monitor (2nd nomination)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign Monitor[edit]

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

Despite its strange abundance of sources, many of which repeat the same information or are even irrelevant, this 16 word article does not make the slightest hint of importance or significance and has even less content than the attempted Yellow Pages entries we're used to deleting. Start up funding or acquisitions/takeovers are rarely anything extraordinary, and visitors to the encyclopedia should not be expected to wade through a plethora of references to find out what the article is supposed to be about. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom: this is a small and not noteworthy businesses Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I extended the article slightly so that the references could be situated around relevant content. However, as the nomination says, announcements about funding and acquisitions are routine. So too are the couple of product reviews and passing mention in a piece about start-ups. The most substantial bylined references are the April 2017 Computerworld item, but that seems to be marked as "Promoted content", and the May 2016 afr.com item, but that was already considered in the previous AfD deletion decision. Clearly a firm going about its business, but I don't see enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH and overturn the December 2016 consensus. AllyD (talk) 18:10, 13 October 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.