Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apadmi Ltd


 * 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 keep. Joyous! | Talk 01:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Apadmi Ltd

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Blatant advertisement with only the advertised information about where there is to say about the company and its services, and the sources honestly themselves are not actually significant, let alone substance, as they hint at republished company PR, and my own searches are finding this exactly. This was started last year by an apparent advertising-only account and there's literally been suggesting otherwise better and with the sources simply being republished company information, that's self-explanatory, especially since the article literally cares to start with mentioning its clients. Examining the history finds the company and employees clearly know this article exists because see how the advert tag was added in September but was immediately removed by "Andrew.lee.apadmi" so it's worse that it's the newest contribution by that and the other IPs only focusing with this one advertisement. SwisterTwister  talk  05:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. When searching for the company name without 'Ltd', there are many more sources. British Museum, BBC iPlayer and The Guardian are all significant, reputable sources. That there have been COI edits doesn't affect the notability of the company. peterl (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Contrary to the OP's belief, this doesn't seem to be written in the manner of a promotion. It could use more sources, but notability seems to be established from what I'm seeing so far. Parsley Man (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources, although perhaps on a slightly weaker level, and the article does not have a promotional tone at all. The article does not extol the benefits of the company, use peacock language, or encourage readers to do business with the company. Rather, it provides an objective, neutrally-worded overview about the company. Would benefit from expansion, rather than deletion. North America1000 07:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON; the company is not yet notable per encyclopedia standards, and keeping the article amounts to WP:PROMO as this is a typical startup blurb: funding, awards, etc. No indications yet of significance or notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems like this is a stub at best but I believe there are a number of sites (such as Huffington Post, Manchester Evening News and Computer Weekly) which have content about Apadmi which would elevate this article to notable status. I'm happy to have a go at improving this article to a point where we're happy with it? Lancshero (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2016 (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.