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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BuildZoom[edit]

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

My extensive PROD removed with the completely thin and unconvincing basis of "sources exist", but none of it is actually substantial and this is as blatant as an advertisement it could ever be. SwisterTwister talk 03:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Your complaint about my deprod reason is unhelpful. How about you trim this to focus on your delete reason and we'll go from there. ~Kvng (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom sources are mostly PR fluff and passing mentions, no evidence of actual notability - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam & non-encyclopedic trivia ("Using Tinder to catch a burglar", really?) K.e.coffman (talk) 05:30, 14 October 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.