Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homeboyz Interactive

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 no consensus. Sandstein 13:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Homeboyz Interactive

[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)

Promo. The only properly working source pictures a far less romantic affair that the original author did. Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 17:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In depth profiles in The Economist, CIO Magazine, and Milwaukee Business Journal. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- An article about an affiliate in Pennsylvania January, Brandon (April 30, 2000). "In Camden, a program to shrink the digital divide". Philadelphia Inquirer. p. BR1 – via Newspapers.com. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Profile in Crain's Chicago Business Mccormick, Brian (November 19, 2000). "Job squad". Crain's Chicago Business. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Passes Notability hurdle — I've spent a bit of time adding citations and feel that this passes the minimum notability threshold. This is the version as of this comment placement and this is the diff between version nominated and version as of this writing. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I cannot conduct an in-depth sourcing-search but am unsure as to whether a single Economist profiling makes it pass WP:NCORP.And, I don't think we take Business Journals as indicators of reliability but @Jytdog: ought be more knowledgable as to the criterion of our usage of biz.journals.∯WBG^converse 07:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; sources that come up are passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Just an advertorial. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the refs identified by BillHPike above are sufficient for this to pass gng. Szzuk (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2018 (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.