Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Make It Cheaper

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. SmartSE (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Make It Cheaper[edit]

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

Non notable and promotional. The references are less than they seem. Refs 1,2, 3,4 are press releases. Refs 5, 8. was written by the company. For Ref 6, the list is fastest growing, which means not yet notable. Ref 7 is a mere entry on a legal list , Ref 9 is an appearance of their ceo on a general show, Ref 10 is a general article, not specifically about the company, Ref 11 does not mention the company, or at most simply mentions it if I missed in in the audio, Ref 12 is a promotionl sqib by the ceo of the Australian branch, Ref 13 is trivial, Ref 14 is one of a large group that does not say it is on the LSE.

WP should not be adding to the list of their promotional references. DGG ( talk ) 12:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 12:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 12:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed with DGG. MIC gets a two-sentence mention in Ref 11 that reads more like native advertising than an actual news piece. Everything I'm finding that isn't primary reads like native advertising or promotion. Primefac (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With 140 or so staff, I do not think it counts as WP-notable; also ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. There is no significant independent coverage in the references. Google News lists a lot of mentions, but nothing significant: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Daß Wölf (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing outstandingly good. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 16 August 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.