Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InApp

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. And salt. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

InApp

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

Given sources are mainly press releases or directory type entries in various industry related publications. No sources given from outside the industry. This company does not appear to satisfy the requirements of WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Article was previously deleted a number of times under CSD A7 and/or G11. Current title is WP:SALTed, but article was recreated under a variant capitalization and then moved here. Given that the current incarnation of the article makes a credible assertion of significance and is not blatant spam, I think AfD is the appropriate process, rather than another attempt at speedy deletion. Safiel (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing anything that would suggest WP:CORPDEPTH for this company (at least in Indian sources). Anup [Talk] 20:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 20:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt given the damning number of 4 deletions , three of which simply happened in the past few weeks and the first one happening in 2006, so that's troubling enough as it is to show such blatant advertising, we should not risk yet another 5th deletion, especially if only to use G4; therefore there's also such blatancy to start an article which has been shown as currently non-notable and unacceptable as it is. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt per SwisterTwister. Seems to be excessively re-created and does not meet the policy for WP:CORPDEPTH. -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:06, 8 November 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.