Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revenue On-Line Service


 * 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__. Liz Read! Talk! 08:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Revenue On-Line Service

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

It’s unclear what makes this website notable. If it was innovative in any way, a sentence or two on Revenue Commissioners, with an appropriate reference, would surely suffice. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Completely unsourced, reads like an advert, and non-notable. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - a line in Revenue Commissioners will be enough. Spleodrach (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Websites.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  18:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. On initial review I had considered proposing a "redirect" (as an WP:ATD). However, as noted above, there is no supported/non-promotional/appropriate content that could reasonably be merged to the Revenue Commissioners article. Absent anything to merge, there is nothing to which to redirect. Just delete this SPAM. Guliolopez (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2024 (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.