Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culture Amp


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Culture Amp

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Yet another .Announcement and press releases and no actual accomplishments except the usual rapidly growing, which is very easy when you start from zero. I'm getting tired; this is the last one I will nominate tonight--there will be another batch tomorrow. There is something to be said for doing all of these at once, rather than one at a time at AfD, but I've always been a supporter of giving every article from a chance)  DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)  DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not a notable organization. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NCORP. If we can establish a consensus through AfD that non-notable and promotional articles will be speedily deleted it can only help the project. per WP:IAR J bh  Talk  15:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - and preferably speedily.  Purely  promotional and obviously  a case of someone 'mistakenly'  believing  that  Wikipedia is another LinkedIn, not  understanding  the difference between an Encyclopedia and a comercial  networking  site or the Yellow Pages.. Whether it  is part  of the Orangemoody paid spamming campaign or not,  has said all  that  needs to  be said already. Wikipedia cannot  be allowed to  be used for profit in this way at  the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that  dedicated users spend building  this encyclopedia which in  spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended  to be an additional business networking  platform. Whether the text  itself sounds promotional  or not, the article is an advert and a plethora of sources has never been an automatic assumption  of notability.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Promotional article by a paid advocate. WP:COI and WP:OR apply. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for now as although this is neat and sourced, I found no better coverage thus less chances of better improvement. Feel free to draft and userfy if needed, SwisterTwister   talk  05:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 17 September 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.