Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Fountains De-Stress Spa


 * 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. please address Northamerica1000's concerns regarding your statements about the article creator. Kurykh (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Four Fountains De-Stress Spa

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Clear as a company-motivated and paid advertising which is instantly deleted by our long-held policies WP:What Wikipedia and WP:Paid, which take importance over any and all suggestive guidelines, another maintained foundation since day 1; all sources here, regardless of publication or name, are clear paid press, announcements, press releases, notices, etc., all which violate the simplest standards, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:RS, which still state anything by or for the company's own promotion is unacceptable. All found sources are also fitting the above profile, given it's mirrored consistency in self-served PR, such as this and and this. The users themselves boldly hid their own paid COI, something that WMF Legal itself states is an instant violation, given it's a blatant misuse of Wikipedia and its non-negotiable policies. WP:GNG itself has always been a suggestive guideline which itself begins with "Subjects may be presumed [not guaranteed] if independent coverage....". Our policy WP:Paid explicitly says users must not use Wikipedia as a business webhost as it's a legal policy, thus self-explanatory and, even if someone wanted to start an article, saving someone's paid advertising is not a option. Our policies against paid advertising have even been met with satisfaction by the WMF Foundation. SwisterTwister  talk  03:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 References
 * Comment – Where was this confirmed by a check user as "as a company-motivated and paid advertising".? The article's creator,  has not been blocked. Please provide more information to substantiate your claims. Thanks. North America1000 03:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – Below are a few sources from a cursory search. North America1000 03:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Daily News and Analysis
 * The Economic Times
 * India Today
 * Comment and analysis - These are the same sources offered above in the search links but even if they weren't, they share the same mirrored consistency, take 1 for example, it's about the, that immediately violates WP:CORPDEPTH since it states coverage must be independent and not anything where the company talks about itself, wherever published, sources 2 and 3 share this ("Four Fountains focuses on affordability to woo customers" and "MUST TRY If your work-life is taking a toll on your health, then the Working Professionals Package is ideal for you. In this treatment, they give you a full body massage with sesame oil, working on the tense muscles of the back, neck, shoulder and foot, easing the aches and pains. COST Rs 2,000 to Rs 2,500 DURATION 1 hour" (to quote WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT: ) and that's without then mentioning all three articles share this consistency, that wouldn't even satisfy WP:GNG since it says coverage must be independent and not be supported by primary sources. Next, the author has highly visible signs of sharing Sockpuppet investigations/Gayatri0704 given the similar patterns except that the account was too old for CUing, something all too familiar to such overseas advertisers. Unless the article is actually improved without having to focus in what the company announced about itself, since it would be unacceptable for WP:CORPDEPTH, the main standard for companies here, there's nothing for what our policies classify as actual notability. SwisterTwister   talk  03:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you should redact the statement in your nomination stating "CU-confirmed", because the article creator,, is not even mentioned at Sockpuppet investigations/Gayatri0704. Stating that this user has been CU-confirmed amounts to the casting of unsubstantiated WP:ASPERSIONS. Please, seriously consider redacting this. North America1000 04:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. The references are utterly worthless for notability -- checking the ones proposed by NAmerica, and reading them: t
 * The nature of the DNA article has been already dealt with by ST.
 * The Economic Times citation leads to a single paragraph of advertising. "Four Fountains Spa focuses on affordability to woo customers. Three years ago, three friends in Pune decided to give spas a fresh treatment and some essentials oil, scrubbing and waxing later, they came up with the idea of spas for the masses!"
 * The India Today articles is different. It's a combination article listing 5 spas, with a paragraph of straight PR from each of them.
 * It is not possible to select adequate references by just copying the hits on Google.  DGG ( talk ) 09:51, 9 March 2017 (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.