Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swenzy


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 11:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Swenzy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:CORP, probable WP:HOAX John Nagle (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The discussion at Talk:Swenzy describes the problems in detail. In brief, this was originally a promotional article, and WP:COI and WP:SPA issues were raised. After several editors looked for better sources, it was discovered that 1) the company has no verifiable existence as a company, 2) their "registered trademark" isn't registered with the USPTO or WIPO, 3) their business is creating fake web sites, hoaxes, fake "likes" and Youtube views, and other "black hat" search optimization techniques, and 4) their "About" page points back to the Wikipedia article. They have lots of web references, but they're mostly of their own making. There's so much fake content associated with this business that we can't sort out the real from the fake. In any case, they don't verifiably meet the business criteria for WP:CORP. In other words, this is spam. Spam with a lot of effort behind it, but spam. John Nagle (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. I have addressed the issues with the article at Talk:Swenzy so I won't repeat them here. Far too many problems, should probably have been WP:G11 soon after creation.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep but strip to verifiable information, no matter how slim such might be. Swenzy, SocialVEVO, and whatnot have been extensively written about.  It's an organization that is known for extensive hoaxes and false information, so it's not unusual that the information provided by the company itself is unreliable and/or outright false.  Their notability stems from their engagement in activities that basically amount to fraud, like most of our articles on hoaxsters and spammers, which we don't delete just because the subject themselves is not reliable. See also: Remember the 13th, an article on one of Swenzy's better known hoaxes that I did some work on to remove unverifiable statements.  Gigs (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete not fulfilling WP:CORP.94.194.24.46 (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2014 (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.