Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QASymphony (2nd nomination)

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) 05:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QASymphony

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

Literally a company advertisement for a company whose environment is advertising and this is shown by the noticeable signs of listing anything and everything the company would say about itself, to also then the sources which simply consist of PR and republished PR, none of it being actual independent, significant and substantial information, searches are immediately finding nothing but PR, so that basically shows the best paths and methods the company is taking to advertising, which of course includes this article. I would've also PRODed as this needed to be deleted long long ago, especially considering the 2012 speedy deletion, and please also note the history logs which not only contain large numbers of multiple quickly-passing accounts, but one of them is an actual confirmed employee, "JeffQAS", and the IPs are also geolocating to the company's location. SwisterTwister talk 17:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The COI is strong in this one. The content is almost exclusively that of SPA's. Though the company is notable, WP:NOTPROMO and WP:TNT apply. Kleuske (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- An alternative would be to revert to this version, ban the SPA's (who quack like crazy) from the topic (broadly construed) and keep an eye on it. Kleuske (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands per above - David Gerard (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. Should have been deleted at the first AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:22, 9 October 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.