Deletion of InternetReputation.com

Comment: Content that was removed includes blatant copyright violations (see ) and blogs and press releases used as citations. The "Controversy" section was removed because it was solely sourced to a press release. Again, see . Best regards
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:COPYRIGHT||WP:RS)

Comment: Perhaps the author used sources from the company as well as the text he wrote himself about the event he is writing about? Two more pages are found that can be used for referencing, together with two existing, and I think we can incorporate these links as sources and achieve |general notability guidelines requests, minimal, I agree, but it is there. It is shown that the company is in mugshot removal industry, again, a very "hot" topic in the United States and the rest of the world
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: It's really too early to worry about whether any source establishes that this is a notable business.  The current article is #G11|pure advertising (''an award-winning internet reputation management company''), focusing entirely on the need for its service, how wonderfully they do them, and how much better it is than its competitors.  At any rate, it's an |online business in a |crowded field of self-promoting startups, and nothing in this text establishes the kind of |enduring significance that would make it an |encyclopedia subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD||WP:B2B||WP:MILL||WP:ORGSIG||WP:N)

Comment: See above comment. The two links do not equate to significant coverage about the subject of this discussion. Accordingly, the threshold for notability through the |general notability guidelines has not been established. Best regards
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)