Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Payrexx

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. Consensus is that changes and newly provided sources are not enough to meet WP:GNG or any other relevant notability guideline. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Payrexx

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

Promotional piece for non-notable company per WP:CORP, created by WP:SPA who re-adds the blatant product marketing every time other editors remove it. No significant coverage online in WP: Reliable sources, just press releases and passing mentions failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Proposed deletion contested by single-edit sockpuppet/meatpuppet, with edit summary "deleting tags, working on it to improve references". Uncle Roy (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing on Highbeam about this company and just the usual listings on Google. The given references are typical start-up coverage providing only basic verification, nor does being one of 3 winners of a non-notable award indicate notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG.Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "deleting tags, working on it to improve references" - This was my edit summary and I am not a sock puppet or a meat puppet. There is quite significant coverage available online: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] - These sources need to be incorporated into the article. Need for improvement should not be equivalent to deletion. Actonpiks (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC) — Actonpiks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete -- the article exists to promote the business. Wikipedia is not a repository of this company's sales materials. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to trim the article and remove the promotional looking text. Please help and reconsider your vote. Actonpiks (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As of this version, the article is basically A7 material (i.e. too insignificant). That's what happens with promo articles on nn topics -- when promotional material is removed, there's nothing left. It's still a "Delete" for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not paper, so is more expansive that most. However, someone needs to have written a great deal about a subject for it to meet inclusion requirements for an encyclopedia. Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2017 (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.