Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EzineArticles

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. Seddon ^talk 21:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EzineArticles

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Long-lasting promotional article about a site that has long been notorious to those fighting its spam, but not notable in WP:RSes on the evidence. Has been tagged for bad sourcing since 2012; looking through the history, this appears never to have been referenced to RSes well enough to support its claims of notability. Promotional editors have often stopped by to add multiple paragraphs of brochure puffery, though the current version has been cleared of these. A WP:BEFORE does not show independent third-party coverage in RSes that would meet WP:CORP, WP:NWEB, WP:GNG or any other notability guideline; indeed, there's basically negligible RS coverage to base an article on - lots of press releases, some churnalism and some passing mentions. I'd be happy to be shown wrong with multiple RS coverage, but it'd need to be shown. - David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, there are no reliable sources. The history of this organisation is link farming and spinning articles for SEO. It has fallen by the wayside somewhat due Google advancing its search algorithm. Nonetheless, GNG is not presented in this article. WP:TNT, blow it up. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nominator and per above. Lack of sources is evident, with majority of accesible resources being either connected with the site itself either trivial--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 20:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom failsWP:NCORP ,WP:NWEB and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2021 (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.