Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dgtl Concepts


 * 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Dgtl Concepts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Purely promotional article..... Aru@baska ❯❯❯ Vanguard 09:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - total lack of reliable secondary sources Spiderone  20:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I wasn't aware this was at AfD when I tagged the page for speedy deletion as promotional, but as indicated, there is a lack of secondary sources and seems promotional in nature.  Page creator has the company name in their username, indicating they represent the company, a clear COI. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The article was speedy deleted as G11 this morning, and recreated a few hours later by a different user - 331dot speedied this recreation, before a bot had a chance to restore the missing AfD template. The nomination and first response may relate to a different version of the article. --McGeddon (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can't see any reliable secondary sources either, on the current version. All sources are either the company's own website, or websites of companies they've worked with (which only mention DGTL in passing, if at all). --McGeddon (talk) 10:36, 7 November 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.