Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R17 Ventures AG


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Daniel (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

R17 Ventures AG

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Is WP:ADMASQ. Contested CSD hence AfD. Many primary sources and churnalism sources. Likely UPE. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies,  and Switzerland.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Declined at AfC and then moved to mainspace on a new account's 11th edit. Nothing in the article is indicative of this being more than a marketing agency going about its business in its chosen market. The given references (locations, investments, inclusion in a "Clutch 100" fastest-growing list, intern scheme announcement, etc.) fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches find another recent industry award ("best performance marketing agency in South Africa" at a Markets African Excellence Awards) but nothing indicative of attained notability here. AllyD (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article does not speak for itself and explain how the company passes corporate notability, which is based on what third parties say about the company. This article is about what the company says about itself, which is common, but does not pass corporate notability.  If the proponents will identify three sources, an analysis of those sources can be performed.  The conduct of the proponents is typical either of ultras, fanatical editors, or of paid editors; but corporations don't have ultras, so draw your conclusion.  The edit summary Perfectly Written and informative. is a red flag in itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment to User:Timtrent - Be careful what you wish for. Don't nominate anything with 23 references for G7.  It might be deleted.  It will then spend seven days at Deletion Review, and then be Relisted by DRV, and then spend seven days at AFD anyway that you had tried to avoid.  This time, you didn't get your wish, and that means only seven days rather than fourteen.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon I have more bizarre wishes than you could possibly know! 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete same reasons as the two delete votes above mine. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with preceding contributors. There's not enough independent reliably sourced material to pass WP:ORGIND. Rupples (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2023 (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.