Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3dcart

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3dcart[edit]

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

Article exists for publicity purposes. Most sources are primary sources (interview on techli.com, numerous press releases on PRweb and BusinessWire). The only bona-fide reliable source might be PCMag, but that's just a brief mention in a larger list, as is the toptenreviews source. The merchantmaverick source is basically an infomercial. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- while the article is basically an advertorial, I'm seeing some sources via Google books, for example in E-commerce Platform Acceptance: Suppliers, Retailers, and Consumers. This is published by Springer Publishing so should be RS. Another book mention: Fashion Retailing: A Multi-Channel Approach. Further input on sources would be welcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Additional sources added to "Further Reading" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liarakrios (talk • contribs) 14:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I checked a few of the sources in Further Reading - all trivial mentions so far. - MrOllie (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I checked all 18 of the further reading sources too just now, and ended up removing all but three. I removed the book sources because they don't provide coverage of the company, but rather the product. And even then, I don't see that as significant coverage in the context of a larger book. Of the three I kept, one is an interview (primary source) but the other two are detailed reviews (of the product, not the company). I don't know if those sources are considered reliable though.

Possibly the article could be recast as an article about the product than the company? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete - this is substantially promotional - David Gerard (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on second thoughts. I minor e-commerse company with a marginally notable (?) product. Coverage insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH and GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising. Coverage insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. The Banner talk 19:52, 31 August 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.