Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Click4Support


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Click4Support

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NCORP, article is sourced only to a press release and some directory listings. McGeddon (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * delete as non-notable, plenty of hits on Google, but they are a press release and a ton of forum posts (mostly about scams) Deunanknute (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The number of reports suggesting that this company is a scam when I Google them is concerning, but I can't see any news reports about them. Nick-D (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually there's an LA Times article about how the company uses misleading sales tactics, which I've added to the article, but that seems to be it. --McGeddon (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The LA Times story directly addresses the subject. (This article should be kept even if it superficially appears to be a WP:Coatrack for critics - because said criticism is what has generated Click4Support's notability/infamy in the first place.) Pax 21:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NCORP requires multiple reliable sources. --McGeddon (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 16:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It also requires some depth to the sources, similar to WP:Coatrack. Deunanknute (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2015 (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.