Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thinxtra

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thinxtra[edit]

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

Per WP:NCORP, the subject was created in 2015 - possibly WP:TOOSOON to tell whether or not it's impact is significant. Seems somewhat WP:PROMO in several sections (discussing low prices of services, areas in which service is provided, etc). Not sure if the short-lived company is relevant enough to meet WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak keep~~ gnews reveals some sources. LibStar (talk) 06:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
change to delete on second thoughts a number of gnews sources are just press releases. LibStar (talk) 10:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON; this startup is not yet notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not only started by 2 clear advertising-only accounts, there's literally advertising costumed as "information" and the sources themselves include this by simply being republished company quotes, that alone is sufficient for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree that tone definitely appears to exist primarily for promotion. Sagecandor (talk) 02:57, 22 November 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.