Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post Affiliate Pro

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. MER-C 08:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post Affiliate Pro

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

Heavily promotional article lacks sufficient RS. Chetsford (talk) 05:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article consists of content appropriate to a sales site/brochure: describing the product features and available integrations. The references are poor, tending to "overview, pricing and features" listings. My searches are finding more of the same, with the paragraph on the Quality Unit firm and this product in this article on "The Next Web" perhaps the best. Not enough to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability by WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG in my opinion. AllyD (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G5 as of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Susana Hodge: CU confirmed UPE sock farm with likely connections to other SPIs detected by CU, and behavioral evidence by a clerk. I'll tag it as suck (note, I was the one who declined the original G11, so I exempt my contribution there from counting against G5.) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:19, 5 November 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.