Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyfuture


 * 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR by a non-blocked nominator. North America1000 16:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Cyfuture

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reason: The article Cyfuture falls under Conflict of interest. B.P. (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 12.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 11:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 17:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * People have conflicts of interest. Articles are inanimate, and do not.  Please state, with reference to deletion policy, a reason for deleting this (lopsidedly sourced) article. Uncle G (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like the nominator will be replying, since they've now been blocked as a sockpuppet. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  22:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Since that's the case, I've had a quick look around myself for in-depth reliable and independent sources that actually discuss this subject, rather than discuss another company and only tangentially mention this one. I didn't find any.  Uncle G (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep because the nominator has failed to explain the conflict of interest that motivated this nomination. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and speedy tag as I have now, there's nothing at all actually convincing and there's no need to clarify from the nominator as the current article says it all. FWIW, my searches have also found several links now but nothing comparably better convincing so delete at best for now. SwisterTwister   talk  20:49, 27 May 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.