Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scoop Analytics

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. MER-C 02:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scoop Analytics

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

Non-notable website. The citations provided for this article are all based on interviews given by the company's founder. They appear to be part of a large media push to get the company known, but as the website only went live in October 2016 (despite the author's change of the go-live date to February 2015, which is contradicted by the sources given), it is unlikely to have made enough impact yet to be considered notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "minor-tech-startup" spam; nothing's there in terms of notability or significance. WP:TOOSOON for sure. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear listing with which we apply WP:NOT, anything else be damned. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @SwisterTwister: I don't know that I understand your rationale. It sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than giving any clear reason why you believe the article doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's an obvious PR business listing in which WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 17:37, 14 December 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.