Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowdspring (3rd nomination)
as I examined the sources above and the first 5 were all clear promotionalism; the books I'll specify were all unsatisfactory of  and what it classifies as acceptable. The Forbes is actually similar to this too since it contains clear company quotes or other primary-sourced material, such as {{tq|"The company said", "The company claims", " "According to the company", "Company announces",}} all primary wherever published. Our specific policies here are Wap:What Wikipedia is not and eletion policy both which support removal when material is unacceptable, regardless of Notability. GNG is a suggestive guideline of '''possible''' Notability so it's not a  n immediate solution to keeping. When all these sources have the same "Based on company's words", it's not independent and that Independent coverage  is actually needed by 's stated criteria therefore unusable for keeping here. As for ORGIND again, the books are in fact professionally authored books about the business field side of it, not the objective side of it, therefore cannot be labeled as indiscriminate coverage at all> With or without our differences of how many there are, they won't eliminate the fact they're press releases-influenced for consumer attention. In fact, the current article has a minor few sentences about trivial "controversies" they had, by far outweighed by the centered promotionalism. Like a mannequin, such advertising cannot be sugarcoated with extra press releases, instead the naked truth is removing it as we always have by policies. As an unsurprising note, the current sources first given here in the article are in fact consisting of the same "Company announces", "Company spokesman says", "Company plans", "According to the company", "Company's website", etc. All speaks for itself. To extend this deeper, I'll boldly highlight the relevant concerns: {{tq|Thanks to services like Crowdspring.com, clients large and small can post a design task and set a fee and sit back while far-flung competitors fight for the prize...."Minimum reward: Crowdspring allows: $200....$359 for a "standard" account. (That amount includes the $200 minimum fee for the winning designer; obviously you can pay more if you want to offer a higher fee. If you pay $1,349, you can register as a "Pro" and supposedly get access to "top creatives," plus more control over who can see your project's entries}}, all instantly violating WP:Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, a relevant policy since it can singlehandedly support deletion, regardless of possible notability. Second one is {{Tq|The service is focused at first on graphic design: Logos, and artwork for use in marketing literature and ad campaigns. A company looking for work posts the assignment to CrowdSpring, and then receives finished work from contractors participating in the service.}} and equally indiscriminate by our policies. This alone in fact airtight-seals its intentions as promotion, given they're simply consumer-targeted guides, not genuine uninvolved coverage and '''no one but the company''' would know a consumer guide for company products best than themselves
— User:SwisterTwister, 03:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:ORGIND||WP:D||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)