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. Tawker ( talk) 07:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC) reply

RevZilla

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

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

There is not one single serious news or magazine article about RevZill. Besides press releases, the only coverage is pure fluff written by "media consultants". Being an Ernst & Young Entrepreneur Of The Year Award Finalist does not meet WP:COMPANY. The GPCC Emerging Business of the Year Award is a purely local award, open only to "emerging" (i.e. new and non-notable) businesses.

The upshot of these problems is that we have nothing of substance to create an article with. We need objective facts from independent sources, and without that we have nothing but unreliable, unverifiable company PR. Note that the article is all the work of COI single-purpose accounts, VifferSwiffer ( talk · contribs) and Cgingrich ( talk · contribs) Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom -- sourcing is too weak to satisfy WP:CORP guideline. — Brianhe ( talk) 21:39, 27 March 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.