Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clickatell


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Clickatell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Deleted multiple times as spam, re-created a few months after the last deletion by yet another account with no history other than adding basically promotional articles. The "sources" amount to directory entries and press releases, some mention the company only as a namecheck. This is a tiny company and there is no evidence of any in-depth coverage, not least because what it does seems to be entirely generic. Guy (Help!) 00:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for now as the best my searches found were only trivial passing mentions at News and browsers, hardly even minimally better for a better notable article. Notifying past user who also commented about the article's notability.  SwisterTwister   talk  18:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, sourcing is simply too thin to pass either CORP or GNG. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:27, 20 December 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.