Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coverfox

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. MBisanz ^talk 22:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverfox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notable company as per Wikipedia policy and borders on advertisement. TushiTalk To Me 06:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Week Detele Seems notable as per media. Got funded and possible new in Fintech domian. Might be kept for future. else delete is not a bad option for now. Writing of this article is definitely promotional and reads like an advertising or press. might be written by close associates. just a thought! Light2021 (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Article does not cite any notable references from authoritative sources. Most of the links are for routine news articles from Economic Times/Indiatimes which are re-dressed press releases. Not a single article tells about the company and what it does and how it has impacted the industry it is in. This raises serious questions on The company's Notability.C. Harris (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible Keep Notability shouldn't be a matter of question here. Ample stories were found online - both about the company and about the company associates. I agree with Light2021, 'it is a possible new in the fintech domain and could be kept for future'. I actually found several more in the Fintech space - Bankbazaar and Policybazaar have been around for quite sometime. I must say, a lot can be done about their pages too. I'm honestly very excited to be a part of Wikipedia fraternity and make my contributions. I can help improve the writing for this one. The Recent activities section is a little promotional. I'm concerned how one could talk about this company's impact in the industry at a platform like Wikipedia. Such information is mostly editorial based and should be avoided as per Wikipedia writing guidelines. Correct me if I'm wrong anywhere.NidhiRana (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:PROMO; the content is strictly advertorial with typical sections such as "Accolades and Mentions", "Recent Activities" etc. This content belongs on a company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article is promotional in content (and only subtly hidden at that). Fails WP:NOTPROMO. Everyone on this AfD agrees that the content is currently promotional. If it is a notable topic, another editor should be able to recreate it again without the promotional content. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.