Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peer39 (2nd nomination)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer39[edit]

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

Clearly promotional. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NCORP - most sources are primary (or fail verification), there's one interview with the founder and some stuff on their venture funding, but material on the company itself is basically absent. Google News is wall-to-wall press releases nobody bit on. It's been merged into another company since, and even that merger only shows up in press releases that no third-party source seems to have considered worth running. Passed AFD in 2008 with the aid of some single-issue opinions, I submit it doesn't pass muster in 2016 - David Gerard (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough WP:RS to pass WP:NCORP. shoy (reactions) 19:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as PR by all means, none of this comes close at all for actual substance. The consensus at the 1st AfD simply shows how different and necessarily critical Wikipedia is now. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- coverage is either trivial or PR-like. Insufficient to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:41, 26 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.