Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clickbooth (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. MER-C 03:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Deleted before in 2011 until it was immediately restarted by moving a Userspace Draft to mainspace, but there's literally nothing for actual independent notability and substance here since it only heavily focuses with 2 things: PR and the 1 law case, of which I'm only finding a few mere news mentions for, so there's nothing for what we would need for a convincing article, especially since this has also literally not changed since then. As always and this is not surprising, there are IPs and accounts that suggest the company was involved with this article. SwisterTwister  talk  03:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  03:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as spam. Created by Special:Contributions/Johnintegraclick with no other contribution so paid editing is about 100% certain. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * delete per above - advertising for advertising. I can find RSes for their patent litigation and their FTC penalty (fine for run-of-the-mill acai berry spam), but I'm not sure those swing them to sufficient notoriety to pass WP:CORPDEPTH - David Gerard (talk) 09:28, 9 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.