Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avangate (2nd 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Speedy Deleted in 2007 with enough consensus that this would've actually been G4 applicable if the contents were symmetrical, but they are imaginably not, so here we are at AfD # 2 for hopefully a permanent lock for future uses. The sources listed here are largely PR and other fluff unconvincing sources, the best sources there are, Forbes, TechCrunch and BBC, but the Forbes has "Avangate to the rescue" which is then followed by largely interviewed information from the businesspeople themselves, the next one, TechCrunch (actually only consists of a few paragraphs) contains noticeable information about funding and what the company's financial plans are; none of that is guaranteed to be immune from the company's own supplied information, therefore it's not convincing; the next one, BBC, only mentions them a mere 2 times; imaginably a shoehorned "inclusion" of news to simply make the illusion of there being an international source! I also suggest Salting because an explosive 5 times, including that 2007 AfD one. Next, my own searches found nothing at all, which is not surprising, considering the company itself would've likely put it here for the imagery of having news! As if the PR concerns are not enough, looking at the history will show there's a noticeable user consistently touching this article, and quite noticeably at that, going farther shows two other SPA accounts, likely involved also. SwisterTwister  talk  20:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  20:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  20:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * delete per nom The REFBOMBing looks substantial and informative until you actually look at the claimed sources, at which point you will see the accuracy of SwisterTwister's assessment. And that's before the blatantly promotional tone and editing pattern - David Gerard (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertising / investor prospectus / product brochure. Nothing to salvage here. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 3 October 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.