Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freight payment service

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freight payment service

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

This is a long article in essay form, offering advice to the reader, with only two independent references. Probable conflict of interest involved. Deb (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has changed somewhat over the years, but examination of a sample of versions over its history suggests that at no time has it been anything other than an essay, giving personal commentary and, as Deb says, advice to the reader. Virtually all of the content of the article has always been unsourced. It has also been repeatedly edited over the years by editors with a clear connection to one company, who have added promotional links to this and other articles, and it seems plausible that it has always been promotional in intent; it has certainly always had a promotional tone. There is also a possibility of copyright infringement, as pointed out on the article's talk page almost 6 years ago. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –XboxGamer22408^talk 18:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an essay, and thus should be deleted. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 21:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can just see a wall of text, without any proper encyclopedic value. There's also the issue of how few sources are used. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (vent) 20:05, 20 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.