Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Getit

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 no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Advertisement of the company. references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Timberlack (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: Nominator has been blocked as a UPE sock. Blablubbs|talk 20:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2011-09✗ G11

• Comment regarding the above Cewbot note: There was a no-consensus AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Getit Infoservices Private Limited in 2012; the page was moved to its current title in December 2019. AllyD (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggesting keep or no-consensus close: As with some other recent AfDs, I am wary of those whose nomination may be problematic, as with the blocked account in this case. Under the 2012 AfD, editors with keep opinions pointed to several media items; from the descriptions, some may also meet the current WP:NCORP but they are not now available online. Searches now find material mainly about the 2013 acquisition ([1] - routine coverage under WP:CORPDEPTH) and the company's closure in 2016, such as "Six real reasons behind AskMe shutting down", Business Today 31 August 2016. Although that is a news-driven analysis, it might also contribute towards WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2021 (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.