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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GoNoodle (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)

This is an undisclosed commissioned piece based largely on sources that are either primary, unreliable or both. Many of the statements can be traced to company's own marketing materials. Basically, the company is talking about itself in this article, making a mockery of the principles of verifiability and neutral point of view. I nominate it for deletion as a violation of WP:NOT combined with the lack of clear indication of notability.

In revision #822414471,

• Ref 1, USA Today, reprinted from a Local Newspaper - the article consists mostly of quotes by the company's founders, the source fails WP:ORGIND
• Ref 2, directory entry, which doesn't contribute to notability
• Ref 3, The Leaf Chronicle - a local news site
• Ref 4, Forbes Contributor Network - unreliable, doesn't contribute to notability
• Ref 5, Upworthy - another contributor network, not reliable, doesn't contribute to notability
• Ref 6, Katc.com, again a piece of local news
• Ref 7, Washington Times Herald, an article in a daily newspaper serving the city of Washington in Indiana
• Ref 8, Press release by the company's customer
• Ref 9, Another Forbes contributor
• Ref 10, dead link to a personal blog
• Ref 11, release by GoNoodle
• Ref 12, [1] - article in a local business news site

In summary:

• six references (2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11) are primary and/or unreliable and undisputably contribute nothing to notability
• one reference (8) is a press release by the customer, thus primary and doesn't contribute to notability
• four references (3, 6, 7, 12) are to local news sites. Per WP:AUD, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability.
• one reference (1) is a reprint of an article from a local newspaper. Since it is based mostly on quotes by the founders of GoNoodle, it should be given little weight when establishing notability.

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:NOTADVERTISING. Rentier (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH per nom's thorough analysis. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one of my promotions but it really does fall short in the end. More notable than the state pageant pages but lacks on on wiki fanbase to protect it from all our policies. Legacypac (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom's deconstruction, seemingly third party sources lead to a WP:CORPDEPTH failure.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:08, 18 February 2018 (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.