Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watchfinder (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. Salting may be requested at WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Watchfinder

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

Written like an advertisement, previously deleted.

Note of full disclosure: I was made aware of this page because I have previously written an article on Bob's Watches and someone found this article and noticed its promotional tone which violates guidlines. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC) (COI amended 21:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Just commercial blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. purely promotional article about promotional website, DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I note that there do seem to be a small number of citations that MIGHT convey notability... but the problem is that this page is so severely an advertisement that even if it is notable, there's nothing to salvage for a real article. So even if notability applies, I'm actually going to buck my long-standing trend of avoiding WP:TNT, and say that WP:TNT applies here IFF notability is actually established. Delete without prejudice for being recreated WITHOUT being an advertisement and firmly establishing notability with real, valid, reliable sources. Fieari (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO as "corporate spam" of which section "Buy Back Guarantee" is just one example. Salting may be a good idea, to avoid wasting volunteer editors' time in an event of likely recreation. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:31, 26 September 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.