Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WebPros

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WebPros

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is an article about an investment company that does not meet notability. The company has one notable product in cPanel through acquisition. The sourcing in the article is what looks like a regurgitated press release, a definite press release and a link to Oakley Captial which is just their web site and no mention of WebPros. I cannot find any coverage to establish notability, only more press releases. Whpq (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Luxembourg. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NCORP. No significant coverage in independent sources at all. Only press releases. C F A 💬 18:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also recommend salting because this has been created & rejected as a draft twice (Draft:WebPros (company), Draft:WebPros) before being recreated in mainspace. Likely some type of WP:UPE. C F A 💬 18:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage, except for local and industry-related sites. Prof.PMarini (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:N. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:45, 31 July 2024 (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.