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 keep. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Namify[edit]

Namify (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

See WP:ORGCRIT. No significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary independent sources. See lots of press release coverage and name-checks.

"A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

"These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. As such, the guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article."

Coverage that does exist corresponds to the "trivial coverage" section in WP:ORGCRIT. Please read that section in WP:ORGCRIT.

— rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Computing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added more content and a few new references. In particular these 2 new references are pretty indepth: itechpost.com and Supermonitoring.com. Dudeanc (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In addition, I would like to add to check my comments in the Talk page. Even tough couple of articles appear to be press releases, they are not actual press releases. They are original articles written either based on the available news or press releases they may have seen. A press release usually says that it is a press release and has a specific format. So these here are actually good indepth articles about the company: hostingjournalist thedomains.com/ and cloud7

  In addition, please consider these additional inpdeth articles:

  - isletislet.com/ - Not press release, full article about the tool

  - dnjournal.com/ - Pretty indepth from well respected Domain Name publication that has been around for many years. It is one of the premier news sites for Domainers and domain/hosting news.

  - studybreaks.com/ - Has 2 paragraphs info, so not just a passing mention

  - hostinger.in/tutorials/ - Has 7 paragraphs of info on them and named among 9 best.

  - techspotty.com/ - A very long and indepth article about them.

  - shiftedmag.com/f - Talking about Namify in 4 paragraphs. Dudeanc (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep After reviewing the above citations, I agree that it meets notability. Several of these articles are very good. Zeddedm (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:ORGCRIT per the sources provided by Dudeanc.4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2022 (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.