Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blitsy

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blitsy

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

Declined several times at AfC for not actually having convincing substance beyond the trivial business announcements, listings, company quotes, funding columns and other triviality. Our non-negotiable policies explicitly shoe we are not a business listing and that's exactly what this is, hence should never have been accepted when it's clear it only exists as a business campaign, and it's emphasized when there's such close persistence in puffing the company'a funding achievements. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}/_{Your Page}) 03:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that this article has substance. Successive rounds of VC funding augers well for the prospects of the business. I think we should have an article on this subject. It seems to pass WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The policy WP:NOT applies here which always outweighs suggestive guidelines; also, "successive rounds of funding" is actually what WP:CORPDEPTH state against because "funding information is not substance in notability". Overall, WP:NOT states "Wikipedia is not a business listing for simple information for its finances or similar". So where in policy is "we should have an article" stated? (wP:NOT certainly supports any deletion when it's only for PR) SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:ORG. The WP:NOT policy defers to WP:ORG when it comes to determining whether a page should exist about a company: "See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability." Stickee (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT is non-negotiable because it outweighs every suggestive notability guideline there is, the concerns explicitly specify in WP:Wikipedia Is Not A Business Listing and the fact this article had only ever focused with advertising information, outweighs WP:ORG, which in itself says "This is not a guarantee of notability". Also, please specify which of the sources satisfy our policies, because the current ones that exist here are the ones either published or republished as company announcements, listings, mentions and similar hence WP:ORG itself says such "sources are not establishing notability because they are not independent of the subject and are simply trivial" in the specific section of "Depth": " Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability". SwisterTwister talk 23:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope The first perogative is to determine whether a topic is notable and passes GNG. That takes precedence over any other policy. If a topic passes GNG, then the article should be rewritten, not deleted. The WP:NOT policy tells us what should and should not be contained in articles. There is no interpretation that states that if an article contains promotional content, then it is automatically deleted. (Apologies if I've misinterpreted what you are saying, but I've seen you make this assertion in the past, pointed it out to you, and you continue to make this incorrect assertion.) -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and analysis -

1 is a guide
2 is another announcement
3 is a funding announcement
4 is their own listing
5 is another funding announcement
6 is another business announcement
7 is another business announcement
8 is their own listing
9 is a business interview
10 is another funding announcement
11 is another business announcement

So none of this in fact even satisfies the basic standards of suggestive guidelines. In fact, this vigilant search showed nothing but mirrors of above, complete to the same republished consistency. SwisterTwister talk 23:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per SwisterTwister, definitely WP:NOT - none of these are reliable sources. -- Dane ^talk 02:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam on a subject with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:37, 24 January 2017 (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.