- 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. joe decker talk 15:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
REP Interactive
- REP Interactive ( | 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 article was not properly made by a single purpose account. A quick google search reveals that he works for the company. Thus, there is a conflict of interest. The article also uses peacock terms. It should either be drafted or deleted. -- JumpLike23 (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Me, I would gave probably just tagged it for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising. Anyway, I don't see any coverage that isn't PR-newswire type stuff, like this. They've won marketing awards, but nothing that would confer enough notability to keep, I don't think. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete for now as there's nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 04:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 04:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Move to draft this may be a less-than-competent job of coi writing, but I think that sourcing all the awards and other material might well show the company notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - run of the mill WP:ARTSPAM masquerading as an encyclopedia article. Undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not. The blatantly promotional tone of the article reflects its intended role as an advertisement. Citobun ( talk) 10:33, 17 November 2015 (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. joe decker talk 15:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
REP Interactive
- REP Interactive ( | 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 article was not properly made by a single purpose account. A quick google search reveals that he works for the company. Thus, there is a conflict of interest. The article also uses peacock terms. It should either be drafted or deleted. -- JumpLike23 (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Me, I would gave probably just tagged it for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising. Anyway, I don't see any coverage that isn't PR-newswire type stuff, like this. They've won marketing awards, but nothing that would confer enough notability to keep, I don't think. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete for now as there's nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 04:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 04:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Move to draft this may be a less-than-competent job of coi writing, but I think that sourcing all the awards and other material might well show the company notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - run of the mill WP:ARTSPAM masquerading as an encyclopedia article. Undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not. The blatantly promotional tone of the article reflects its intended role as an advertisement. Citobun ( talk) 10:33, 17 November 2015 (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.