- 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) 19:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
OverTheTop
- OverTheTop ( | 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 subject does not meet our notability guidelines for companies and organizations. None of the sources provided seem to be explicitly about this subject, at best they merely mention the subject in small or trivial ways. Salimfadhley ( talk) 12:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT: we are not an advertising venue for "over the top" SEO. ☆ Bri ( talk) 14:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTSPAM and as a likely terms of use violation created in perfect formatting as the first edit of an editor once they reached autoconfirmed status to get it out of the NPP new editors review pool. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy delete G5, G11, TOS violation. Rentier ( talk) 13:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Spam Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: per Doc James, blatant spam. DrStrauss talk 06:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete terms of use violation. jcc ( tea and biscuits) 11:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Spam. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Should have been a speedy delete, it is that blatant. Edwardx ( talk) 00:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Spot-checked the references and none gave information about the company itself. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 15:55, 6 August 2017 (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.
- 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) 19:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
OverTheTop
- OverTheTop ( | 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 subject does not meet our notability guidelines for companies and organizations. None of the sources provided seem to be explicitly about this subject, at best they merely mention the subject in small or trivial ways. Salimfadhley ( talk) 12:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 17:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT: we are not an advertising venue for "over the top" SEO. ☆ Bri ( talk) 14:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTSPAM and as a likely terms of use violation created in perfect formatting as the first edit of an editor once they reached autoconfirmed status to get it out of the NPP new editors review pool. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy delete G5, G11, TOS violation. Rentier ( talk) 13:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Spam Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: per Doc James, blatant spam. DrStrauss talk 06:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete terms of use violation. jcc ( tea and biscuits) 11:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Spam. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Should have been a speedy delete, it is that blatant. Edwardx ( talk) 00:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Spot-checked the references and none gave information about the company itself. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 15:55, 6 August 2017 (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.