Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProspectsPLUS!


 * 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. Consensus, ; it was in addition written by a banned sockpuppet of a promotional editor( just before they were banner--so it isn't a speedy)  DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

ProspectsPLUS!

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Literally nothing of genuine substance for independent notability and there's literally nothing to genuinely mistake it as otherwise, everything listed is simply published and republished advertising for and by the company itself, searches unsurprisingly found this, and this author, as it is, was involved in a multi-account advertising campaign. Normally, I would've simply PRODed but given the blatancy of restarting advertisements, I wouldn't be surprised if we'll need G4 later. Thus, together with this, WP:NOT clearly applies when what will equally apply is WP:BASIC or WP:GNG as those are not policy, unlike WP:NOT which is. SwisterTwister  talk  03:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: An article by a blocked sockpuppet on a firm which produces mailshot material. Neither inclusion in a list of largest revenue firms in its local area nor as number 3,348 in an Inc5000 list of fastest-growing companies is indicative in itself of encyclopaedic notability. Nor is the coverage referenced into the article or found by search showing evidence that this is more than a firm going about its business routine. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  → Call me  Razr   Nation  07:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: agree that it fails WP:CORPDEPTH.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  07:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as corporate spam on an unremarkable business. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:57, 6 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.