Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inspecta


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Inspecta

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Harrias because the creator (User:Yousef.Alipour, WP:SPA) contested it at talk; unfortunately I cannot credit Harrias with good judgement, as the creator's argument at Talk:Inspecta show total lack of understanding of the notability guidelines I clearly linked in my PROD ("Inspecta has already have pages in two other languages... The company is growing fast and it's good to let other know about in the international language... You can easily find information about almost any company in wiki with even less than 100 employee" - those are textbook examples from Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). Now we have to waste our time with this here. Sigh. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. PS. Ping User:Anarchyte who suggested speedy deletion before my prod. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The guidelines do not require the objection to be a good one, merely that it exists. Read Proposed deletion before insulting people's judgement. Harrias talk 20:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete That notwithstanding, this article does not meet the notability requirements in my opinion, and cursory Google searches don't throw up anything that suggests otherwise. Harrias talk 20:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * SNOW Delete as quite clearly A7 material and the obvious intents of a PR web listing, hence delete by our policies alone. SwisterTwister   talk  23:52, 27 December 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.