Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Privatoria


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 12:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Privatoria

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are several explanations as to why this shouldn't have been accepted: (1) is that the information and sources are all trivial and unconvincing, either coming from the company itself or republishing of it (supposed reviews are coming from indie websites, quite conceivable for such to be either self-authored or paid for), (2) is the fact my own searches are then not finding anything but said sources, especially as I got deeper, (3) is that the history shows it was only started for advertising, since there's no actual significance or anything close it and (4) there's literally nothing else but this, showing how it's simply a blatant advertisement for a newly started company, of which is hoping to use this as a PR webhost. Clearly this is not a case for WP:BASIC and WP:GNG but even if it was, WP:SPAM and WP:NOT apply which is Wikipedia-founded, not guidelines. SwisterTwister  talk  08:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't a newly started company (founded in 2013) but your other points are valid. I approved the Article for Creation, and was probably wrong to do so.--FeralOink (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. No significant coverage to indicate notability. The only coverage seems to come from niche review sites with what seems to be limited editorial control. No longer a penguin (talk) 12:59, 16 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.