Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QiK Stay (2nd nomination)

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QiK Stay

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

Renominating as the consensus itself at the first AfD basically had a foreseeable consensus (even the 1 "Weak keep" vote) that there's ultimately simply still not enough substance and convincing to suggest the actually needed improvements. All this boils to currently is a 1-year-old company still attempting to establish its ground with expected news such as about interviews, funding and other trivialism. Analyzing the other votes such as the last one by an SPA shows it's not convincing and then the "Multiple locations and secondary source coverage gives it notability" comment is still subject to question with the needs of it actually needing to be substantially better, not "simply enough [by multiple locations and secondary source coverage". Notifying 1st AfD nominator DGG. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non notable and promotional. The refs are mostly from their own web site, with an additional one used several times from a promotional interview in a newspaper Getting such interviews is the job of a PR agent, but we shouldn't be considering them as showing anything other than the competence of the pr agent. Written and updated by two single purpose editors, who can probably be considered as undeclared paid editors, which should be enough reason for deletion. . In any case, borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is a good reason for deletion . Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just corporate PR. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- promo content on a non notable company. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2016 (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.