Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicomi


 * 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. MER-C 04:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Vicomi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A typical promotional article. all claims are blatant advertising only. like "largest online emotional data network" or "some of the biggest online publishers in Europe". Just the press for startup but not for its significance. other references are merely mentioned nothing notable. need to much more than that to become an encyclopedia notable. This is not a directory for startups happens everyday and even get funded and even get few coverage by popular media. Funding, operations and selective awards mentioned as promotions. definitely influenced by the company officials. Light2021 (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - apart from the blatantly promotional nature and the low-quality sources, my own WP:BEFORE shows promotional-push coverage and funding announcements - David Gerard (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and this is quite honestly speedy material, everything is simply either listing or republishing what the company would say about itself and therefore motivate for continuing this advertising, I had been watching this article since last July and it's certainly delete material now, not only considering the sheerness of no other accounts contributing to it, but the mere sheerness of the account letting it stay like this when it was clearly advertising, therefore we never compromise with that. SwisterTwister   talk  02:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - The only in-depth coverage I was able to find was from Tech Cocktail. I am not completely sure about its reliability and even if we use it, one source does not amount to "significant coverage."--CNMall41 (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2016 (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.