Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RapidVisa


 * 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 01:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

RapidVisa

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH and apparent case of paid editing Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Only notable for being brought to court, but as the case was dismissed I do not believe the article subject is any different from other visa services and as such fails WP:MILL. Also, the current article seems to promotional and was created by a UDP editor.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - Although it was made by a paid editor, this service seems to be notable. It has in depth coverage in reliable sources. It passes WP:ORGDEPTH. The specific criteria that could be contestable is whether or not the coverage is routine. I believe the coverage not to be routine, as the articles are not simple statements or notices that something is happening with the company. In fact, the article in The Colorado Springs Business Journal was published on Nov. 9, 2015, while the court thing was finished on Sept. 2 (at least according to what I understand of the source). Overall, this is definitely not routine, and I don't think that it is promotional either. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  22:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable company and coverage is routine.122.171.237.5 (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is basically either non-RS, trivial mentions, WP:ROUTINE, or press releases. Onel 5969  TT me 19:48, 30 September 2017 (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.