- 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) 06:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
IContact
- IContact ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I honestly would've PRODed if not for the 2005 AfD which of course closed as Delete, since none of this actually substantiates and amounting to substance for an acceptable article, and it's certainly not something improvable since it's all PR-founded and that alone, every single source is PR itself and cannot be accepted as significant no matter what may be claimed, my own searches are blatantly finding next to nothing but a few PR pieces, which says enough by itself, and that's not surprising since this is a company which, not only restarted it after the eon-aged 2005 AfD (which was surprising itself considering it was 2005!) but it says it all the fact this company's environment is simply PR itself. It's also, yet enough and also worse to sa,y this was speedy tagged twice as G11 when it started in 2009 by a naturally unused account afterwards of course, but this has literally not changed which is also not surprising since company advertisements will not change! SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- delete bad sourcing, nothing convincing in a basic BEFORE - corporate ownership news, some PR-push churnalism - David Gerard ( talk) 08:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- with sections such as "History" and "Awards", this is typical corporate spam. No value to the project and no indications of notability or significance. Delete with fire. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete There is nothing about the company which would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:CORPIND. The 2 somewhat good sources are simply interviews of the founder [1], [2] which doesn't satisfy WP:CORPIND. There's a plethora of mentions in PR and local business journals but nothing substantial. This company was later bought by Vocus btw. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 14:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) 06:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
IContact
- IContact ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I honestly would've PRODed if not for the 2005 AfD which of course closed as Delete, since none of this actually substantiates and amounting to substance for an acceptable article, and it's certainly not something improvable since it's all PR-founded and that alone, every single source is PR itself and cannot be accepted as significant no matter what may be claimed, my own searches are blatantly finding next to nothing but a few PR pieces, which says enough by itself, and that's not surprising since this is a company which, not only restarted it after the eon-aged 2005 AfD (which was surprising itself considering it was 2005!) but it says it all the fact this company's environment is simply PR itself. It's also, yet enough and also worse to sa,y this was speedy tagged twice as G11 when it started in 2009 by a naturally unused account afterwards of course, but this has literally not changed which is also not surprising since company advertisements will not change! SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- delete bad sourcing, nothing convincing in a basic BEFORE - corporate ownership news, some PR-push churnalism - David Gerard ( talk) 08:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- with sections such as "History" and "Awards", this is typical corporate spam. No value to the project and no indications of notability or significance. Delete with fire. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete There is nothing about the company which would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:CORPIND. The 2 somewhat good sources are simply interviews of the founder [1], [2] which doesn't satisfy WP:CORPIND. There's a plethora of mentions in PR and local business journals but nothing substantial. This company was later bought by Vocus btw. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 14:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- 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.