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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WebGreeter[edit]

WebGreeter (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)

Carefully crafted article that fails to assert basic notability and is sourced entirely to primary sources and press releases. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. I did a web search and could find only pages from the company that sells this service, and a few blog and forum posts, many of which seemed to be spam from the same company. In addition, the current article is written like a marketing handout. Probably sufficiently so to warrant speedy deletion as blatant promotion. DES ^(talk) 20:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly fails basic tests of verifiability required by WP:CORP. Steven Walling • talk 02:14, 15 September 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.