Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EFactor.com


 * 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

EFactor.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG. Promotional/vanity article. This company article lists four references (excluding the company's own website), none of which actually mention the company. A cursory search for other references fails to find substantial references that qualify as RS. Article is liberally sprinkled with off-Wiki links to company's own website and infused with advertising statements like "EFactor is a true social network that offers in person and online networking opportunities to help develop a successful business." According to article's Talk page, entry was written by someone closely affiliated with company ("We are a big supporter of Wikipedia here at EFactor and wish to be on your free encyclopedia.") LavaBaron (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 28.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 18:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete Nominator's research is persuasive. Could almost have been speedy-deleted per G11, blatant advertising. --MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 17:56, 7 March 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.