Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instamojo

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instamojo (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)

A WP:PROMO article on an unremarkable fintech startup. Significant RS coverage cannot be found, and what comes is either PR driven or insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as essentially an actual G11 considering the literal specifics about the company's numbers and "services activities", this is a blatant advertisement with expected number of several accounts involved, but none of them actually escaping the considerable essence of advertising information; therefore we make no exceptions or compromises for such blatancy. SwisterTwister talk 21:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:PROMO and WP:NCORP. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete  No promo problems have been identified in this AfD and none were found in the article.  References such as [1] from April 2013 support WP:GNG, but also show that the company was still in a start-up stage using word of mouth advertising.  This article, dated October 2013, stated that there was a plan to move the "entire team" of four members to San Francisco by early 2015.  As per WP:SUSTAINED, we have little interest in future potential, as we can wait to see if there are results to report.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:17, 6 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.