Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inkxpert


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Inkxpert

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:ADMASQ article on a Non notable organization that specialize in making “non notable” entities appear notable and they have attempted to do that whilst creating this article. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus do not satisfy WP:NCORP, there is 0 WP:ORGDEPTH. A before search turns up a plethora of announcements, press releases, pr sponsored posts and other blatant unreliable sources. For an organization that makes non notable entities appear notable they aren’t particularly good at it. I ensivage sock and spa !votes here. Celestina007 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete All the sources I can find are PR puff pieces or retreads of press releases. Angryapathy (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Based on the contents of the sources I conclude that their main purpose is to mention the subject, not to provide useful information. Source #10 has the company name misspelled multiple times. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. They must not be very good at content marketing if this article is an example. Wowie zowie. No sources worth writing home about. This stinks! jp×g 22:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The fake tags on the talk page must be the latest know how in marketing. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to say it's a pretty courageous move to just put "Article approved by administrator, don't put deletion tag." on the talk page of your own article. Not "smart", or "good", but definitely courageous. jp×g 18:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nomination. Management consulting companies seem to assume god status for reason. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Blatant spam. Clearly fails WP:CORP.  Java Hurricane  17:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: All are press release. Sonofstar (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 13:11, 9 June 2021 (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.