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. Consensus is that the topic does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards at this time. North America1000 02:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)reply
As written, this is a
promotional listing. Since Wikipedia is not for promotion, this leaves the author and others with two choices. First, they can accept the AFD and let the article be deleted again. Second, they can build a neutral article, and this is not, and does not reflect a Google search.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 15:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment The article is neutral and only provides facts about the company based off of source material publicly available. Please highlight which language is promotional - so that I can find better source material to draw from. This is a large company that I used recently, and was surprised they didn't have a wiki page - when competitors like booking.com have a page.
Gurutsm (
talk) 16:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - No, no, no. I don't intend to help neutralize a promotional listing when there is already an AFD that is an adequate basis for
G4.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 01:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Repeating my rationale from the AfD on the previous instance: "An article on an intermediating company website, with content and references predominantly primary or routine announcements of the partnership deals inherent to that kind of business. No
evidence of notability, whether as
website or
company." The added Q&As with the founder do not change that position.
AllyD (
talk) 19:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - I'm just not finding the in-depth coverage needed here. --
CNMall41 (
talk) 04:04, 2 September 2017 (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.
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. Consensus is that the topic does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards at this time. North America1000 02:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)reply
As written, this is a
promotional listing. Since Wikipedia is not for promotion, this leaves the author and others with two choices. First, they can accept the AFD and let the article be deleted again. Second, they can build a neutral article, and this is not, and does not reflect a Google search.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 15:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment The article is neutral and only provides facts about the company based off of source material publicly available. Please highlight which language is promotional - so that I can find better source material to draw from. This is a large company that I used recently, and was surprised they didn't have a wiki page - when competitors like booking.com have a page.
Gurutsm (
talk) 16:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - No, no, no. I don't intend to help neutralize a promotional listing when there is already an AFD that is an adequate basis for
G4.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 01:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Repeating my rationale from the AfD on the previous instance: "An article on an intermediating company website, with content and references predominantly primary or routine announcements of the partnership deals inherent to that kind of business. No
evidence of notability, whether as
website or
company." The added Q&As with the founder do not change that position.
AllyD (
talk) 19:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - I'm just not finding the in-depth coverage needed here. --
CNMall41 (
talk) 04:04, 2 September 2017 (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.