Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FrndiNeed

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. Kurykh (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FrndiNeed[edit]

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

Part of a CU-confirmed paid advertising campaign in which several accounts were involved and singlehandedly used to cover each other's articles, something that violates our main policies WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Deletion policy and WP:NOT, because they all clearly maintain any and all advertising is removed, especially when used to misuse Wikipedia for webhosting, because they're policies we've held since day 1; all sources here are clear paid press, including with either clear labels or thinly hidden ones, especially because the mirrored copypaste information all confirms it, and also unconvincing in WP:CORPDEPTH (it states even published or republished information can be unacceptable if solely used for company promotion); next, it's unsurprising every search here and here found clear signs of such self-published or republished promotion, because they all show the given authorship by the company itself. It's not only one violation to intentionally hide COI payment, but it's a worse one to use multiple accounts to enlarge and hide it, which is never a negotiable matter here. As our policies note such as WP:Sockpuppetry, we will not tolerate both covert paid contributing and then attempts to bypass it using multiple accounts. WP:GNG itself says we will not accept anything still by or for the company, or where it has similar effects. When no one is actually willing to significantly improve this, beyond cosmetic rewording or styling, it shows it cannot be improved to our set policies. Every single source here, particularly 1 and 3-8 (with 2 only being a mere business column notice) is a clearly labeled or thinly hidden paid press, advertised columns, business interviews where the company spoke to clients, etc. which is exactly what my searches all found with the mirrored consistency of shared business quarterly schedules (not a coincidence at all), including with such information as costs, pricing availability, etc. which violates WP:What Wikipedia is not. Our Wikipedia banner has also stated Wikipedia will not accept advertising as that has never been a foreseeable option. SwisterTwister talk 18:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete every "app" does not merit an article. Way too soon to see if this one has an effect deep enough to merit notability. The article admits the creator is a PR person, and there is no evidence there is anyone else at the startup. W Nowicki (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOT. Non-notable app. Sources are primarily press releases or derived from them. Article is purely promotional and violate WP:PROMOTION and such articles are never acceptable. CBS527^Talk 23:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:50, 15 March 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.