Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ReGlobe (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Per consensus, non-notable company. Philg88 ♦talk 12:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

ReGlobe
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Essentially the same as the article deleted twice previously, once by speedy,oce by CSD. Promotional and not notable. The references are basically press releases or articles based on them ,or mere notices. The contents is promotional, using unsupported terms of praise "quickly with minimum effort" ; "correct value" and descriptions of its routine operations which are exactly like all used electronic commerce sites. Veryborderline notable at best, and borderline notability plus promotionalism is a reason for deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 07:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - I actually saw when this was nominated and was going to comment but I wanted to wait. Now I suppose, there could be better coverage with my searches here, here and here. SwisterTwister   talk  05:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * comment I won't vote here, too close to my wheelhouse. The article seems pretty well sourced and the original editor seems to be actively working on promotional tone concerns. 009o9 (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  03:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  09:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a company. They do a thing. They didn't invent the thing and aren't even particularly special at the thing. Yeah that's not good rationale for being notable.--Savonneux (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Hard to add much to the nominator's evaluation, it is spot on. The company is not innovative, or a trendsetter. It is fairly new, and is generally only briefly mention as participating in the industry. What it needs is dedicated articles about it in notable sources, and I don't see that.  Scr ★ pIron IV 17:11, 4 September 2015 (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.