Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpotJobs

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SpotJobs[edit]

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

Sourcing only consists of simple company announcements, mentions, interviews, press releases and other announcements, not one is both substantial and non-PR and that's unsurprising since the company is still obviously seeking funding and support hence a common sign it's not even established, searches mirror this by simply finding business announcements and similar. Deleted once before as A7 and G11 before restarting by obvious SPAs. We explicitly stated that our policies, regardless of sourcing or names, won't accepted advertising of any kind especially when it's as blatant as that, and such no-advertising policies are essential. SwisterTwister talk 19:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Agree with some of the issues raised with regards to how the article is written, but think it is covered well enough in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources appear to mainly be advertorials or lightweight stories that aren't much better, and this is not a large company. As such WP:ORG is not met. Nick-D (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think there is just enough out there to scrape this one over the bar. I might be convinced otherwise on the basis of still a bit TOOSOON though. Aoziwe (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep agree with User:Aoziwe that this was created a little SOON, but a gNews search [1] seems to show enough notability to keep this company.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically an advertisement; oif notable , it should be started over by someone prepared to write an objective article. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What specific sources do you believe qualify as significant coverage? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable web site; the article does not add value to the project, and its existence here only serves to promote the company. "Google search" is not a convincing argument for keeping, as I don't see sources that provide significant coverage to meet corp depth. Basically, a job site going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is a smattering of business pages news coverage of this company, but nothing that I wouldn't consider to be absolutely routine. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:22, 22 January 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.