Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CARiD


 * 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. czar 08:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

CARiD

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Like many COI works, the page is made to look well-sourced without being so in actuality. The sources are all broken links, primary sources, trivial mentions, original research and other junk sources. The article is overtly promotional. A page listing corporate sponsorships and product discounts offers little benefit to Wikipedia and its readers. Even if the company turned out to be marginally notable, there is not enough here worth salvaging. I have no COI/financial connection. CorporateM (Talk) 20:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Seems like it is promotional as well as the creator having a conflict of interest. Could also qualify for a speedy deletion under section G11 of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. Class455fan1 (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07  ( T ) 14:55, 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 I was not able to find any independent sources. The majority of the sources in the article are not independent, they are listings of sponsorships by the company. Totally agree with nom. LaMona (talk) 00:28, 17 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.