Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icreon Tech


 * 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Icreon Tech

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Clear and blatant company advertising since all of this is either company-focused or so are the listed sources, with those also either being firsthand PR or second republishing of it, I unsurprisingly found only PR advertising and PR interviews and a heavy focus of it, at that, therefore it shows the company is passionately capable of advertising itself, Wikipedia should of course not be involved with it or encourage it. The history itself shows the repeated attempts of removing advertising, only for advertising-only accounts to come and replace it, therefore it shows there's no actual benefits here or that we should mistake anything of it, when it's clear advertising. SwisterTwister  talk  21:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. It may possibly be that the parent company, Icreon, is notable. (There's not enough information given to immediately convert it) But I don't see the subsidiary could have been intended for anything other than an advertising listing.  DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom. Also does not seem to meet WP:GNG, judging by that tag in the article. Parsley Man (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as corporate spam. I've attempted in the past to clean up the article by removing massive amounts of promo copy, but it does not appear that there's anything there. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 20 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.