Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AdPushup

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. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AdPushup

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

Fails WP:CORP. All material about the company is passing mentions in the context of other similar businesses, press releases and articles that appear to be written by its own employees. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: most of the reference cited are not even known website, lot of wrongfull claim leading to indirect promo of the company. and as per WP:CORP is a pass by mention Shrikanthv (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I do see citations from TechCrunch, TechInAsia and Economic times which are known websites with their own Wikipedia pages. Sonakshi87 (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, can you please list out the "not even know websites" as well as the "wrongfull claim" which you noticed? Sonakshi87 (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am surprised to see that how come an entry be nominated for deletion that has primary coverage over websites like techcrunch, economic times, the next web, vc circle, business standard, yourstory.com, nextbigwhat.com, techinasia.com and many more & has been featured on a leading business news channel of india NDTV (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip7jpXGZx-Q) and also has been selected by Microsoft for the Microsoft accelerator program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.70.250 (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A search in google news brings several significant references which are enough to keep this article in Wikipedia. - Variation 25.2 (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep simply because it at least has minimal news coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2015 (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.