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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SendSocial[edit]

SendSocial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Of the sources listed about this startup, one MIGHT be non-trivial (although it does read like a press-release), the remainder are youtube, and blog entries, a search on google news doesn't turn up anything related to this company. It just doesn't seem like SendSocial is notable, yet - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.... 2 says you, says two 20:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way a group is formed does not equal notability. Notability comes from coverage in reliable, third party, non-blog sources. 2 says you, says two 05:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added further sources in the way of regional and local publications, which can be considered reliable and they are not blogs. Now has 10 independent references. Derbian85 (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2010 (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.