Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samepoint

: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. Euryalus (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

=[[Samepoint]]=

:{{la|Samepoint}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samepoint Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Samepoint}})

WP:NOTPROMO. No assertion of notability - there's no assertion as to why what the company does matters in the slightest other than for trivia. Company is also defunct. MSJapan (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete as I still confirm everything from my PROD, nothing convincing summarizes it all. SwisterTwister talk 03:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete: I don't regard the given references as substantial coverage (especially "another dashboard" in The Next Web) and see nothing better to suggest attained notability in the product's lifetime. AllyD (talk) 08:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete The company billed itself as a social media search engine. Social media weren't indexed by Google at the time, so it was a market opportunity, but apparently not a moneymaker. I found one book, [https://books.google.com/books?id=TgJEAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA248&dq=%22Samepoint%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjd1aTd7tHNAhXB6oMKHb0BDS8Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=%22Samepoint%22&f=false Social Information: Gaining Competitive and Business Advantage Using Social Media Tools], that covers the service in depth and some brief mentions in other books. Not quite enough to pass notability. I don't see any compelling merge targets either. Unless more sourcing shows up, deletion may be the best course. --Mark viking (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable company. Fails GNG / ORG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

: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.