Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neumarkets

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. WP:SNOW, WP:NOTBURO. This doesn't have the snowball's chance of any other result, so going ahead and closing it. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neumarkets[edit]

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

Four year old company with 6 employees. Comprehensively fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. All references are either to directory listings, self-written profiles, the company's website, or do not mention the company at all. I can find nothing better. This has all the hallmarks of the paid-for article, springing fully formed from the hands of a "new" editor, complete with multiple perfectly formatted references (masquerading as independent reliable sources) and a perfectly formatted infobox. It also has all the hallmarks of the Orangemoody paid editing sockfarm, i.e. a series of minor edits to become autoconfirmed, followed by creating the page first as an implausible redirect and then returning a week later to turn it into an article [1]. The page was marked as reviewed [2] by a confirmed Orangemoody sock [3]. Voceditenore (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 06:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As the nominator says, the given references are an unconvincing set of user-submitted listings etc., and my searches are finding nothing better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously unsatisfactory references--mostly linkedin. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Noticeably no signs even minimally of a better article, with none of the listed sources outstandingly suggesting a better notable article yet. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even absent the allegations of paid/WP:COI editing, the quality of article's references fall far closer to the "A7 threshold" than they do to the most generous possible threshold to avoid deletion at AFD. Many references are about individual people, not the company as a whole. The vast majority of companies of this size will fail WP:N. Any admin seeing this after it's been open 24 hours should consider a WP:SNOW-close if the overall circumstances fit. Also, if this winds up being speedy-deleted as a page created by a banned or blocked editor AND if there is enough participation at this AFD that it could have been deleted by an early-close of this AFD, consider closing the AFD as "deletion pre-empted by speedy deletion, but closing this AFD as DELETE to allow for speedy-deletion if it is re-created." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with davidwr. Unfortunately, Neil Palmer Photography, another article almost surely from this sockfarm and likewise hopelessly non-notable, was speedy deleted as G11 (unambiguous advertising) in the middle of its AfD which had 8 "deletes" and 0 "keeps". Not an optimal result. Voceditenore (talk) 06:25, 19 December 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.