Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XTM International


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

XTM International

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NCORP because most of the sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Unless these offline sources are REALLY great then this article is built on nothing. Article appears to have been written by a single-purpose account.

Analysis of sources: Not significant: 1, 2, 17, 19

Not independent: 5, 6, 7, 8 10, 14

Link doesn't work: 3, 4, 9, 11

Not mentioned at all: 15

Can't analyze: 12, 13, 16 shoy (reactions) 14:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit: Also tried WP:BEFORE and found nothing but press releases. shoy (reactions) 14:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP due to lacking independent sustained WP:SIGCOV. The sources in the article and on the web do nothing to push this company over any notability bar and the WP:SPA that created this article as their one edit very likely had a COI, which means this article should be swiftly uprooted so as not to reward corruption on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Some links need to be updated. The article is 100% factual, I can prepare an updated version ( links/review ) it before taking any decision. Would that be ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CB-Artist (talk • contribs) 14:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

the article is simple and factual, now it is corrected with new and updated links - I am open to suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CB-Artist (talk • contribs) 15:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 17:53, 30 June 2019 (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.