Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skweez Media

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 keep. Tawker (talk) 06:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skweez Media[edit]

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

Contested speedy, G11, placing on AfD for consensus. Tawker (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notability guidelines of organizations and companies which states An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The topic has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources like CNBC news, the Huffington Post, TheStreet.com, The Daily Dot, XBIZ, AVN magazine etc. If there are any promotional text then this can be re-written. Thanks.--Talpatra (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Most of the sources cited in the article were to obvious press releases. Press releases are not allowable, per WP:SPS. I further pruned out a lot of promotional content, such as biographies of the founders. There isn't a whole lot left, but at least the article is built on reliable sources now instead of press releases. The article could probably be expanded dramatically if someone felt like quoting more information from the already-available sources instead of using them for promotional sound bites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the great cleanup but you removed all the XBIZ and AVN sources.--Talpatra (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those were obvious press releases. As self-published sources, one can source them for simple facts, such as date of incorporation, name of the CEO, etc, but they are definitely not reliable sources for anything else, and they certainly do not help indicate notability. The CNBC piece is pretty long, and it could easily be used to add more content to the article. I don't mind rewriting promotional articles to be more neutral, but that would take more time and effort than I'm willing to expend right now. Maybe later. Now that the article sounds less like an advertisement, I'd feel comfortable voting to keep it, but I'd like to see what other people think first. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the current revision doesn't look like a promotion and there are significant amount of secondary source discussion. Iniciativass (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2014 (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.