Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whale Path


 * 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 speedy delete. per WP:SNOW Bishonen &#124; talk 18:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Whale Path

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article by paid editor on totally non notable company. All the refs are simply notices of PR about it as a start up--it doesn't actually have any accomplishments as yet. That's what we call "not yet notable". We wouldn't make an article of a musician whose most important activity was raising money to make their first recording but had not yet done so, or an author who had gotten a grant to write their first book, but has not yet written it. Why should we do it for a company?  DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NCORP. Sources are inadequate per WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. J bh  Talk  15:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - and preferably speedily.  Purely  promotional and obviously  a case of someone 'mistakenly'  believing  that  Wikipedia is another LinkedIn, not  understanding  the difference between an Encyclopedia and a comercial  networking  site or the Yellow Pages.. Whether it  is part  of the Orangemoody paid spamming campaign or not,  has said all  that  needs to  be said already. Wikipedia cannot  be allowed to  be used for profit in this way at  the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that  dedicated users spend building  this encyclopedia which in  spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended  to be an additional business networking  platform. Whether the text  itself sounds promotional  or not, the article is an advert and a plethora of sources has never been an automatic assumption  of notability.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Clearly not much for an article yet and there are no better sources thus no improvement. SwisterTwister   talk  21:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Advertising via a paid advocate. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete NOT ADVERT. Also, undisclosed paid, blocked user wasting volunteers time. Widefox ; talk 00:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete finally now, it should have been possible to speedy this back in May when I [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BiH&oldid=661509614 reported] gross irregularities in this user's edits, or a few days later when I [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Brianhe/COIbox2&direction=next&oldid=661511678 discovered] and then [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=662660148 reported] this specific article with the prescient comment "This has the feel of a factory for paid editing with probable involvement of other accounts." This must now be deleted for the plainly sufficient WP integrity reasons enunciated by nominator DGG, Kudpung, and Widefox. Brianhe (talk) 07:04, 15 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.