Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SaleCycle

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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SaleCycle (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)

Spammy article for a non-notable company. Declined 3 times at AFC, but created anyway without addressing concerns. Contested prod. Bradv 00:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While I don't agree with the creator's tactics in by creating the page after 3 failed attempts at WP:AFC, the subject is notable. Page needs some work though if it is to keep. Meatsgains (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - An article should not be treated as Spam gratuitously. Please refer to the talk page to see what happened in the AFC and come up with a thorough opinion based on all the facts. I added the {{notability|Companies}} template at the moment of the publication thinking it was an unambiguous way of addressing the main concern. As I understand, there is still a lot of debate on notability determination: please focus the debate in decide about it and not in a presumption of non-notability for this kind of companies because those aren't guidelines. I think this contestation maybe was raised because of my behavior instead of the article's Notability. This could invalidate the original reasons to Nominate the article for deletion and and this debate would be taking place in the TalkPage. Edelmoral (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The very weak sourcing for this article does not establish notability, and the AfC reviewers User:SwisterTwister and User:Eteethan rightly rejected it, three times. I am sorry for Edelmoral's work on the draft but the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I believe it's still too soon as I mentioned at AfC. SwisterTwister talk 17:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep <(striking duplicate !vote) - along with these sources, the subject also meets WP:AUD and WP:ORGIND (fulfilling the WP:ORG#Primary_criteria) with: Edelmoral (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have struck your duplicate !vote, you only get one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a democratic election or a popularity contest (WP:WIKINOTVOTE), so isn't a "vote", is my position in the debate. We're here triying to reach a WP:CON. Edelmoral (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, that's why we say "!vote" ("not-vote"); my point is that you may not say keep or delete in boldface more than once, it's the long-standing rule for everybody at AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, I'm actually convinced by the sources so I'm changing my !vote to Keep Just one of those per person, mind.Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 21 April 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.