Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strike Social

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strike Social (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine business news and PR. scope_creep^Talk 12:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete per nom, might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Coverage available consists of press releases (Business Insider) and routine business pieces in the usual publications such as TechCrunch and Forbes, and in local Chicago outlets, all lacking any any analysis. Mooonswimmer 13:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there is coverage in WP:RS platforms, satisfy WP:GNG [1], [2], [3], [4]. 62.201.239.211 (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every single of these fail WP:SIRS. Paid profiles, the company moving fails and Techncrunch is non-RS. This editor has 6 edits. scope_creep^Talk 20:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Lets look at the refs:

Ref 1: Paywalled.

Ref 2: [5] PR. Moving HQ. Its junk and not independent. Fails WP:SIRS

Ref 3: [6] This is a profile. It is not indepedent, taken from website. Its fails WP:SIRS.

Ref 4: [7] Providing the analytics for some reason. It is not independent. Fails WP:SIRS

Ref 5: [8] This reporting on Forbes X of Y article. It is non-rs.

Ref 6: [9] This is the actual Forbes X of Y article. It is non-rs.

Ref 7: [10] Moving HQ. fails WP:SIRS

Ref 8: [11] Interview with the founder. Fails WP:ORGIND.

Ref 9: [12] Forbes contributor. Non-RS.

Ref 10 [13] It is pure junk. WP:PRIMARY. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS

Ref 11 [14] WP:PRIMARY. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS

Ref 12 [15] Paid profile. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS

Ref 13 [16] Paid Profile. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS

Ref 14 [www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20160707/ISSUE01/160709991/why-this-digital-ad-buying-startup-moved-to-chicago] Moving and interview and PR. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND.

Not a single source is valid enough to pass WP:NCORP. It is an brochure advertising article. scope_creep^Talk 20:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a non-notable organisation, the article puffed out with flaky sources and the smell of advertising. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Reviewing the assement by Scope Creep, I would agree that references fail WP:SIRS. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2023 (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.