Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InfoStreet

InfoStreet

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

This article was created by User:Hutchisojl. She has an impressive userpage, but she is harmful to Wikipedia. She has created only three articles: blatantly promotional articles about Kashoo,[1] InfoStreet, and SkyDesktop.

There are two reasons to delete this "InfoStreet" article. Even one reason would be enough, but I shall list both.

Argument A: The text fails G11 and WP:NOTPROMOTION. So it should be slow-deleted per G11.

Argument B: The subject fails our inclusion criteria. So it should be deleted per WP:42.

The SD Times ref fails SIGCOV and INDY, and the Directions ref fails INDY. Perhaps you will find some other sources; still, you may find it impossible to refute Argument B. User:Ihcoyc explains:

"The current notability guideline for businesses discount purely local coverage, on the grounds that while your business may be notable in the town in which it operates, this doesn't translate to notability in the general world.

"Trade publications and websites, in my opinion, suffer from the same problem. They just aren't likely to be read by anyone outside your trade. And, since many such publications rely on submissions from the businesses they cover, their independence is also subject to some doubt. If you want to rest your case on notability on coverage in business periodicals, they need to be general interest and general circulation periodicals of the Wall Street Journal and Business Week type. A mention in Blacksmithing Today or Modern Dental Offices just doesn't feed the weasel. Likewise, your receiving a minor award at an industry awards banquet does not make a strong case for notability of your business."

Please vote "delete". If you must vote "keep", please refute both of my arguments. If you want to refute only one argument, please comment instead of voting.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]