Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faceparty (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) 08:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Faceparty[edit]

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

Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity, Covered once in a while. or covered mostly by unreliable sources. startup does not mean they are Encyclopedia notable. seems like the Except guardian no other sources. Writing style is questionable for wikipedia content. Light2021 (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 16:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 16:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete per nom - even if all the blatant PR and primary sourcing were to be stripped out, there's one RS substantially about the site, two others that are passing mentions at best - David Gerard (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertising, with nothing to be salvaged there. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and the 1st AfD was the pathetic excuse they once had for keeping articles that merely had any random number or tossed sources and information, none of that is substantiating now and it's nothing we would seriously consider accepting, because everything listed here is in fact trivial for trivial events and other triviality, and none of it actually forms substance. SwisterTwister talk 22:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my time here I've learned that there must be substantial WP:RS articles written about the site: mentions will not do. Delete on these grounds, as well as WP:PROMO. John G Masters (talk) 21:22, 4 October 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.