Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petkit Technology


 * 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 G7 speedy deleted by . (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 08:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Petkit Technology

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non notable organization that fails NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search links me to directories, a plethora of primary sources such as user generated sources and other self published sources. The Forbes source was by a contributor and the Bloomberg source is basically a profile page thus WP:SIGCOV isn’t met. All claims of notability are sourced to self published sources thus isn’t reliable. Furthermore this is an ADMASQ. Celestina007 (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Promotional article as well as sources indicate promotional purposes.--Tysska (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete the current article, without prejudice that the company may be notable and worthy of a very differently-written article. The current article is clearly entirely promotional, basically a combination of a list of investment and a product-catalogue, neither of which is the role of an encyclopaedia. The red-dot awards, although "notable" in the sense of having a WP page, and although selective in the sense of being judged, are not that selective (a very large numbers of red dot awards are handed out each year), there is a substantial payment required for the process, and red dot's web-site goes to a lot of trouble to market the advantages that a red-dot award brings to your business - all of which raises questions about whether they're a genuine sign of notability or a valuable marketing-aid that a company can buy into. Elemimele (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2022 (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.