Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adknowledge

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. Sufficient consensus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adknowledge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Pure puffery for a small non-notable company. "Best place to work" awards are meaningless--most articles that cite them merely mention them, this has a whole section with that heading. The other material is about how it has been names a partner with various notable firms, which simply means that it works with their software. The WSJreferences says at the top "This story is part of a VentureWire series of profiles" VentureWire is a PR source, and totally unreliable for anything. At least the WSJ admits in frankly when they reproduce their material. The other material is of similar quality, no matter how much of it there is. DGG ( talk ) 10:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • VentureWire by the Wall Street Journal was not a PR source, as referenced above. It was the name the WSJ gave its periodic examinations of pre-IPO companies and their merits as potentially publicly-traded firms. Here's the WSJ's editor's note: "This story is part of a VentureWire series of profiles that examines venture-backed companies with at least $100 million in revenue, an oft-mentioned threshold used by investment bankers to determine whether a company is IPO ready." Note that the editors referred to the piece as a "story" not paid placement, a PR release or anything similar. SiliconPrairieFarmer (talk) 19:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as although this has several links, none of it is solidly better convincing and although searches also found several links at Books, News, browsers and Highbeam, none of it is also convincing. Delete at best and restart if ever better, SwisterTwister talk 19:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unable to find convincing articles/news reports to establish notability. Several of the links used are either press releases, primary sources, or simple "business information" posts automatically generated using publicly available information (e.g. Glassdoor links). Elaenia (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2016 (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.