Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Born to Sell

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. Deor (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Born to Sell[edit]

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

Borderline notability; Exactly two sources: one article with non-trivial coverage that includes it as one of two successful small business; the other article gives it a paragragh. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Efforts to tone down the obviously promotional original, have exposed the underlying lack of any credible independent evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the two sources, both discuss the methods by which the founder began his business. There is nothing in either source regarding the notability of the company itself. As written, there is no coverage of the company itself in the sources, no claim to fame of the company. If a notional company called "Acme Toothpaste" used freelance outsourcing to get started, would the company be instantly notable because of its method of beginning operations? No. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Before I started, there was a third independent source, a profile from Barron's; it's basically a discussion of their pricing and basic software tools, and I removed it because the entire section was a copyvio of the source. However, that plus the CNN Money pages still don't demonstrate that an encyclopedia article is warranted for this company. Nyttend (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:42. Fundamentally you need enough independent reliable sourcing to scrape enough information out of so that you can put together an article that's more than a sentence or two, and we don't have that here. Zad68 17:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources fail WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Miniapolis 21:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to be different! Okay seriously, Delete-per what others said. Wgolf (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ORG not met, and the article was started in bad faith by a single purpose account to spam this company. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. In fact the only two exisiting citations are about outsourcing to other companies/persons. Softlavender (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly promotional in intent. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Needs more sources to attest to notability. ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2015 (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.