Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capablue 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 Speedy Deleted as A7 or G11. Chris lk02  Chris Kreider 16:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Capablue Ltd

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Likely not notable. Search produced a mere 20 results, fails WP:V and WP:N. Author removed WP:PROD. JD554 (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. This article about a business is blatant spam, contains absolutely no indicia of importance, and moreover is full of patent nonsense: they claim to be specialising in media convergence and transformation.  Can I get fries with that? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I disagree with it being blantant spam. There is not contact information in the article, simply what service they provide. --JD554 (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article does not cite any 3rd party references. I googled the company, but could not find any reliable 3rd party sources that would make the business a candidate for inclusion into Wikipedia. It almost appears to be written as an advertisement, which makes me think that perhaps the creator of this article may not be in accordance with Conflict of interest.--Startstop123 (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I remain to be convinced that a company that does business with BSKYB and Channel 4 would tout for business on Wikipedia. --JD554 (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Motive is less important than style for me; though frankly I suspect that media and tech businesses know of the publicity value of Wikipedia. But the article is written spam-style, with meaningless glittering generalities and buzzwords, vague to the point of evasiveness.  IMO, that kind of writing labels the text as blatant spam. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - Very likely fails WP:N could not find any reliable sources online. - Samuel  Tan  19:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability, or provide verifiability -- Whpq (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete I've nominated this for a speedy as a non-notable company. Ged UK (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2008 (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.