Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simpl (company)


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Simpl (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Procedural nomination on my part: this page was deleted by me in January after an expired PROD. User, who advises on my talk page that he is an employee of the company, requested undeletion on March 25. Undelete request was denied by because the content was created by a banned user (Donemelo). Roshansam came to my talk page to discuss it. I found the page to be not overly promotional and it does have sources, so I agreed to restore the page for a full AfD in order to settle the issue of whether or not we should have an article about Simpl. We may need to write it from scratch because it was created by a banned user, but I thought it better to figure out the notability issue before it gets recreated again. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: As often happens with single-product companies, the article is an amalgam, titled specifically about the company - in which case it should be entitled Get Simpl Technologies but largely about their Simpl product. Considered as an article about the company, the coverage is largely about who provided start-up funding. Considered as an article about their product, the references are a mix of start-up reviews and brief coverage in cross-sector articles. Whether as an article on the company or its product, it seems propositional, possibly WP:TOOSOON to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User Roshansam has identified as being part of getsimpl.com (2017032910013761). And here's my suggestion - move it to Draft, but delete the edits by the banned user, before the move is made. Ron h jones (Talk) 18:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as corporate spam. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete article is obviously a promotion piece for a corporation and in this case dead is indeed better. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - No significant reliable coverage. CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   17:37, 5 April 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.