Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dot Com Zambia LLC

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dot Com Zambia LLC[edit]

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

Non notable firm. 2 minor awards. some PR. Thee same editor made an article on one of the firms divisions, and on the proprietor. This is a typical promotional technique. Even in an area underrepresented in WP, we should not be tolerating such articles. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteClearly promotional, and no evidence of notability to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Non notable company. Safiel (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment Hold on with the delete..I guess a major issue here is that "Joseph2302" discovered that I created the article as a non-disclosed paid wiki writer. He has even nominated same article for Speedy deletion. I have already responded sincerely to him here. Editors please read my story here "[YOU BEING PAID TO CREATE ARTICLES]" before arriving at the conclusion Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Notice to all editors here! Joseph2302 the AFD nominator is taking this issue personal. He has nominated this same article for speedy deletion on the grounds of "undisclosed paid editing". He has really made me cry for the past 24 hours. I don't know why he's attacking all the pages I created so far. He nominated all of them for speedy deletion and then for AFD. There must be vested interest in his mind. I've already alerted Admins about this issue via the appropriate means. Thanks Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Paid editing, even undeclared paid editing, is not a specific reason for deletion at AfD, but we can delete at AfD any article that the consensus determines is unfit for Wikipedia. To avoid confusion, we avoid giving paid editing as the sole reason, and I did not even mention it here in my nomination. I did not need to. We certainly can and will delete an article about a non-notable subject, or a promotional article regardless of subject, and almost all articles written by undeclared paid editors fail on both grounds, along with a good many of those written by declared paid editors. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hey, I have a "vested interest" too: it's in pitching NN articles that fail the GNG. This one does. Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability requirements. BMK (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Joesph. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:07, 19 May 2015 (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.