Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Room On Call

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. —SpacemanSpiff 03:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Room On Call[edit]

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

Delete and Salt, overblatant advertising deleted only a few months ago by Deb and there's still nothing at all to suggest this is not paid advertising since it in fact is, the fact it's all only what the company would publish about itself at their own website, my own searches are finding the same; Not only was there one advertising-account but now there's a second one involved with this, showing they are quite aware this article exists and are using to their enjoyment of advertising, WP:NOT explicitly states otherwise and hence we use it to remove this. About the salting, 2 deletions is excessive now as it is especially given the circumstances, thus this should easily only be AfC-reviewed if at all, to save ourselves important time and efforts. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While this company has been making progress towards notability, I don't see it meeting WP:COMPANY at this time. All the hits I see on Google are either passing mentions of funding or clearly promotional or self-generated. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would speedy this as blatant advertising if you hadn't already nominated it. Deb (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - per nom; I agree that it is a possible candidate for speedy deletion Spiderone 10:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - Per nom.Should have been speedied.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 11:42, 5 December 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.