Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pogoseat

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 Speedy delete g5, created by Morning277 sock. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pogoseat[edit]

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

Appears to be a promotional article about an iPhone app that is lacking in notability Tiptoety ^talk 07:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (the applicable guideline since software is covered under the organizations and companies that produce it), the depth of coverage for this product is not sufficient to establish notability. Independent news articles are not available (see google news) and at least half of the cited sources are not reliable sources: namely the Mashable (blog) article and the Wall Street Journal blog post. - tucoxn\^talk 08:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the company meets WP:CORP well enough to support at least a stub. I added another reference, from Forbes. Full staff-written articles from ESPN and Forbes, plus a significant mention at the WSJ blog (which I consider a Reliable Source), would seem to meet the requirement for significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the added articles from Forbes and WSJ linked by MelanieN there seems to be notability for a company that appears to be making its mark in a crowded field. Attention from those two sources is not given lightly. BerkeleyLaw1979 (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator (or re-creator) of this article was recently blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Morning277, employee of Wiki-PR. This article was nominated for deletion in anticipation of that outcome. Many of the articles created by this same editor will soon be deleted via CSD WP:G5 since they are articles created by banned or blocked users. The editors supporting keeping this article and the closing editor/admin may want to reflect on whether they want to support this sort of undisclosed paid advocacy editing by not deleting this article. - tucoxn\^talk 02:13, 27 January 2014 (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.