Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AutoAnything (3rd nomination)


 * 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. I'm not convinced salting is called for; the last deletion was four years ago and this is a fairly low-traffic discussion. Mackensen (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

AutoAnything
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was first sent to AfD six years ago and escaped salting despite 3 out of 4 editors suggesting it. It was nominated again a year ago after several speedy deletions for unambiguous advertising. The "KEEP" votes in the latest AfD (closed as "no consensus") are unconvincing and some of those KEEP votes are from accounts that had then-recently added promotional content, like sponsorships, trivial rankings (see WP:ORGAWARDS), and Better Business Bureau ratings. Like many COI works, the sources are well-formatted and give the appearance of strong sourcing, but do not stand up to scrutiny. They are trivial mentions, infographics, junk sources, etc.

I suggest the article be deleted and this time SALTED. I have no COI/financial connection, but I encourage the closer to keep an eye out for it and weigh the arguments, not just the votes. CorporateM (Talk) 20:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07  ( T ) 14:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 17:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Any article that dedicates an entire paragraph to their website redesign is grasping at straws to come up with content. This article looks good on the surface, but the content is uniformly trivial - just a business being a business. Sources are nearly all unremarkable trade magazines that re-report financials. LaMona (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and Salt instead as nominated this last time, and frankly, examining everything listed here still found nothing convincing and, with that said, I would've deleted earlier. Considering its history (yes, even if it's years ago), it's still enough to suggest there's vulnerability of having this started again....and if it is, it's best through another path such as AfC where someone including even myself can review it for assurance.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:17, 20 July 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.