Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blippar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. A Traintalk 08:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blippar[edit]

Blippar (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 clear company advertisement with policy WP:PROMO concerns including promotionalism being removed, only to be immediately added, which is policy-based deletion alone; article has clear company-advertising information including similar mirrors by their own website; notability cannot be inherited from others, certainly not casual partners or clients. When 1 account heavily focuses on an article especially when it's business content, we can obviously say the company is responsible since that's the field of public relations and what it serves. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 19:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's on the verge of being qualified for a G11. Alexius08 (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the page does not comply with the rules, let's rewrite in a neutral point of view the sections that feel promotional instead of deleting the entire page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankieG56 (talkcontribs) 14:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – blatantly promotional and unencyclopedic. An advertisement, contrary to our policies on what Wikipedia is not. Main contributors are undeclared WP:COI editors in violation of Wikimedia Foundation terms of service. Many unreliable sources. Citobun (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lacks notability. News coverage appears to be brief and just about basics of company, no substantial recognition. Brian-armstrong (talk) 04:09, 15 October 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.