Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:AirHelp

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. — xaosflux  Talk 23:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:AirHelp


Non-notable company. Article is refbombed, but when you look at the sources, they're mostly just name drops, quotes from interviews and press releases, and routine coverage of financial events. Clearly WP:UPE from an extensive sock ring. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep – there are plenty of new sources published since the last time this draft was declined, for example . I do believe this meets NORG and can be accepted into mainspace, with additional sources and cleanup for the issues mentioned. Bradv 🍁  18:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm commenting here only the notability of the company, not the fact that it was created by a UPE ring. I'm not sure how best to handle this, as afaik we don't have a policy on deleting things created in violation of our Terms of Use. Bradv 🍁  19:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Topic is clearly notable. I would suggest existing policy lets us delete because of UPE as TOU violation. WP:DELETE explicitly says that those 14 reasons are not comprehensive and so if XfD !voters want to delete because of policy violations, which UPE is, (as we do with COPYRIGHT) then this is completely in competing with that deletion policy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC) I was alerted to this MfD by Bradv
 * Delete Page needs TNT and extended-confirmed create protection so it can be created and properly sourced by a neutral editor. CoolSkittle  (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and ECP - The company is probably notable, but this draft is hopelessly tainted. It isn't a case for G5 because none of the accounts were blocked at the time that the draft was written, but being almost eligible for speedy deletion should always be a reason to consider in a deletion discussion.  The principle is, among other things, that we should not reward sockpuppetry.  This is as Barkeep49 says, and this addresses the comment of Bradv.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 1 April 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.