Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francetelemarketing


 * 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 editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Francetelemarketing

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unfortunately, we have to go through the process of Articles for deletion/French telemarketing all over again as User:Nyttend doesn't believe it's sufficiently similar. It's the same crap. The same as Montrealtelemarketing and Articles for deletion/Quebec telemarketing. All of them are very WP:COAT articles with external links to related non-notable companies, and no references conferring any notability. Yes, French telemarketing was a bit more of a padded COAT article but they are all the same and Wikipedia is being played, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the content is completely different. Let me quote the intro to the deleted article: French Telemarketing is representing telemarketing company business in French. French telemarketing operates in various methods of Teleselling includes; inbound telemarketing, outbound telemarketing, B2B telemarketing and B2C telemarketing to identify business qualify leads and operates in different countries in additional to France, USA, Canada, Indonesia, and Belgium.  Care to explain where you find that content in the current page?  Meanwhile, I see nothing in the current page that appears in the deleted content.  It's nowhere even close to a repost.  Please observe that the WP:CSD policy specifies that Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases; kindly stop abusing administrators who refuse to break the policy.  Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WITHDRAWN Fine, let this article stand. Let a thousand flowers bloom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Now what do you mean? Whether it qualifies for speedy deletion is completely irrelevant to whether it should be deleted here.  The point is that it didn't qualify to be deleted without discussion, not that it needed to be kept.  Nyttend (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Shawn in Montreal, I do not know were you're going WITHDRAWING; Wikipedia is being played. Maybe we're not on it for CSD but I think there is a matter for addition to the guidelines not far from the question. Nyttend, I wouldn't have wanted to come this near, it's just that I have the Wright Brothers on my watchlist. There is a style problem with adding what I'd call "allusive internal links", such as, "the kid was helpful during the crisis", let's link to the crisis and we don't need rewriting for the link to make sense otherwise than allusive. Nyttend, if I remove: As a part of direct marketing, France telemarketing operates..., which is an abusive assumption; if I remove It operates in telecommunication service and respect to telemarketing rules and regulation under The French government, which is an abusive assumption, what we have is bare and simple crap. All that remains to the article supports itself with a ref claiming it observes a Do Not Call List. I think, that is shiny, and you're blinded. --Askedonty (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Utterly fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Now bring on Antarcticatelemarketing (pizza delivered to your research station within 21 days, or it's free!!!), Naurutelemarketing, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll just stay out of it, then. There are by my count three SPA editors creating a walled garden of related spam articles, as well as an IP in the Philippines. It's a bit like playing whack-a-mole if we don't start salting and blocking. I guess I felt like it's not being taken seriously enough but of course at any given moment there's a huge backload of similar garbage to deal with. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete The references are generally about telemarketing in France, not about this particular company, although in some cases the company gets mentions. Oddly, the web site takes me to "Quebec Telemarketing" not to a company based in Paris. In any case, I don't see this passing WP:CORP. LaMona (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's been my point, which I know I haven't expressed clearly enough: these are all WP:COAT articles to promote "Quebec Telemarketing". All of them. There's been about five now, by my count, using either France/French, Quebec or Montreal, with a variety of strategies to make it seem like these are bona fide articles about different things. They are not -- we're getting serially played here in an SEO gaming attempt. I should mention that I've started an SPI for all these SPA spammers at Sockpuppet investigations/Nopirosyadi, fwiw. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nomination. Hithladaeus (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete As per the nominator, it's the same rubbish as the Quebec one, WP:ADMASQ. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. This is at least the eighth tenth  eleventh twelfth article (still counting, because they keep creating them) about this company, created under half a dozen different titles by various socks. (For the list, see Sockpuppet investigations/Nopirosyadi.) IMO any article that even mentions Quebec Telemarketing (as this one does, see the "official website" link) should be deleted and salted on sight. --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 2 June 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.