Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erento


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. There is no deletion rationale provided here in the nomination statement but opinion is unanimous that this article should be deleted so that is the outcome of this two week discussion period. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Erento

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Someone previously attempted PROD, but I thought we should do AFD instead User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 13.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 18:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Sawerchessread, that someone was me, and you could have told me. I don't know why we are here, and you didn't give a deletion rationale. You also didn't give any actual reason for removing the PROD--this is just an extra layer of work. Delete: not a notable outfit. Likely COI/UPE creation with promotional contributions. In the past it's had some sourcing, but if you look carefully those are really press releases in things that aren't independent publications. My PROD rationale said "Pretty obvious COI creation. Lack of secondary sources, no credible claims of notability, really just product placement", and I stand by that. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * apologies. did not know the protocol. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. I don't think it can meet current standards wrt. NCORP. Other issues mentioned by Drmies are also persuasive. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. NN. Desertarun (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2024 (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.