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. Sandstein 16:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CertifiKID[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Promotion, based on sources are non-independent and promotional. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this very carefully on New Page Review, source by source, did further searching, and have decided it is promotional content based on non-independent promotional sources, carefully placed advertorials and infomercial. Nice lady, nice company filling a niche, sure, but it has received independent critical commentary.

The references, do they attest wikipedia-notability, WP:CORP?:

Ref 1.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/she-turned-parenting-into-a-5m-daily-deals-business/2015/10/24/c2acd014-78e2-11e5-bc80-9091021aeb69_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.30130dcf5d04
No. Feature story based on an interview. Not independent.
Ref 2.
https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2016/08/11/how-jamie-ratner-built-a-profitable-family-website.html
No. Same as 1.
Ref 3.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/on-parenting/16-ways-to-save-money-on-kids-activities/2017/08/28/70217488-73bf-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?utm_term=.210f55aa3ff4
No. Mere mention, and the mention is solely to advertise.
Ref 4.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/capital-buzz-certifikid-expands-to-chicago-and-la/2013/02/10/9ef62704-7130-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_story.html?utm_term=.a7dc638b8336
Yes maybe. Seems independent objective third party commentary.
Ref 5.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/value-added-this-mompreneur-runs-a-daily-deals-site-for-families/2012/05/04/gIQA93na6T_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.89f74f08a211
A business section feature, though the writing feels very very close to the subject, it doesn't feel very independent. More puff than critical commentary. Calling it "non-independent".
Ref 6.
Repeated reference,
same as 1. Same no.
Ref 7.
http://www.wbaltv.com/article/families-of-kids-with-special-needs-can-find-deals-online/7073027
No. Mere mention, and promotional.
Ref 8.
Repeated reference.
Sane as 3. Same no.
Ref 9.
http://www.wbaltv.com/article/this-video-of-a-police-dog-performing-cpr-is-the-best-thing-you-ll-see-today/21929609
No. Advertisement. Definitely not independent. Is not commentary.

Searching the web for other sources, not finding any, but finding heavy advertising, including infomercials such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DdwCV4okU8

This is a heavily advertising company, all sources appear non-independent. Fails WP:CORP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 06:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. It sounds like it ought to be a notable company, but who is this Thomas Heath who is keeping it in the news. Deb (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone personally known is my guess. Re-reading Reference 4, which I considered the only one to cross the line to GNG meeting, it reads very puff, and how does the author know the contents of the confidential agreement? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, based on your investigative instincts. Deb (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:12, 26 June 2018 (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.