Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabrooms

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. postdlf (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrooms

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

Promotional article for startup that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I have checked all the sources. They are mostly bloggy and none is in-depth coverage. See also WP:TOOSOON Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article just does not state why the subject is notable. It seems like it may be a promotion. Delete? —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 00:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The 3rd party coverage to date does not demonstrate attained notability in terms of WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:NWEB. Also note the presence of WP:COI editing. AllyD (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with AllyD, no notability proven. Moreover, references are likely paid advertising disguised as articles or only a passing reference. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:21, 26 July 2013 (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.