Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modere


 * 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. ✗ plicit  14:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Modere

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable business. Current version of the article is unreferenced, but that's because some recent promotional (possible COI) editing. However, previous versions were also weakly supported, and much of the cites had to do with some earlier tax fraud etc. related to the company. A search finds nothing that comes even close to RS sigcov; the best I could come up with were a couple of Forbes 'sites' pieces and some press release regurgitations, none of which establish notability. Fails WP:GNG / WP:CORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing notable. Promo article. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as an encyclopedic article. Article has subjective and biased style, as well as puffery and unverified sources that lack independence. — F ORMAL D UDE  ( talk ) 05:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, I couldn't find sufficient evidence of notability. Suonii180 (talk) 10:39, 30 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.