Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GovLoop
- 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. Courcelles 00:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- GovLoop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article appears to be self-promotion/advertisement of a website. The references cited appear to promote other promotion articles rather than about any notoriety of the website.
The wikipedia references I used to determine if Speedy Deletion applies to the named article are:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming
Attemtped to add this line: {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GovLoop}} to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_November_15&action=submit but wasn't able to do so. Have surmised that adding it (as instructed where the Submit button is, for this form) may require being an Administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kernel.package (talk • contribs) 23:11, 15 November 2010
- I just found this AFD un-logged so I logged it today, 12 December. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google News search reveals that (in addition to press releases etc.) this company has received quite a bit of coverage in Reliable Sources. I added to the article two links from the Washington Post and one from the Minneapolis Star-Journal; there are others. --MelanieN (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per MelanieN.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:44, 19 December 2010 (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.