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. MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Data Collective[edit]

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

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

This article is paid advertorial. The sources look very much like press releases published as news, i.e. churnalism. The organisation does not seem to pass the notability bar, which is presumably why the article was paid for rather than created by a volunteer. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I found a few possible sources online. Could they be used to create a less crappyy stub? Bearian (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- the sources linked above are all PR-driven, and insufficient to build an NPOV article. Purely WP:PROMO at this point (and in foreseeable future), so delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 20 March 2017 (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.