Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OnDeck


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

OnDeck

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a WP:AFC acceptance that was substantially smaller and devoid of the overblown nature of this one, though that also suffered slightly from WP:CITEKILL.

Since acceptance to has grown into a huge promotional exhibition of WP:BOMBARD. It is a blatant piece of trade puffery and advertorial Fiddle   Faddle  16:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relist to permit time for Bearian's suggestion to unfold.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as I simply see nothing better. Pinging interested subject users, and .  SwisterTwister   talk  06:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. too promotional. Better to start over.  DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - this is quite badly written and over-linked, but I'm not sure that WP:TNT or WP:SPAM apply. If nobody fixes it in the next six days, then I'd go along with DGG et al. Bearian (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 14:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree with Bearian's intent, as this company might be notable, although I'm on the other side of the fence and looking at the article, it is so infused with promotional material and MOS issues that it would be better to simply blow it up and start over. But give it a week and see if any work is done on it.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete no substantial changes since nomination Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:32, 14 November 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.