Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goodshop

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goodshop[edit]

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

Promotional article written like an IPO summary. Highly promotional. Fails WP:ORGIND. scope_creep (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable company. Capitals00 (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional and non-notable company. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not commenting on the above at the moment as I have yet to fully assess it, but I have so far found a few pieces in Entrepreneur(interview, another interview) about/mentioning this site, and a Forbes interview. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes interview is on a sites subdomain, which means it is user generated and Non RS. Its Forbes own web hosting platform. Here is what Entrepreneur says on its articles: Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. It is also Non RS. scope_creep (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Didn't intend to sound like I was borderline "keep" - I am neutral at this time - I was just stating that they did exist & giving "preliminary findings" as it were. Will !vote shortly. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I was making more of statement of the state the references, more than anything else. scope_creep (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete you'd have thought for a company in existence since 2005 that it may have gained some notability in that time. I can't see much beyond the article that appears largely promotional and devoid of any actual tangible encyclopedic content. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:25, 19 March 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.