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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation Advocate[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Promotional article does not show significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Google News search had a few more hits, mainly press releases and passing mentions. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite my best attempts at searching, nothing which can rescue this from non notability ---- _nonsense ferret 05:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same happened to me. This topic does not meet the correspondent notability guideline to be included on the encyclopedia. — Ṙ ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated above. Andrew³²⁷ 17:28, 5 February 2013 (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.