Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maslife

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. Geschichte (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maslife[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

An article created, moved to draftspace by another editor, then moved back by the new editor who created it (and who has not responded to queries about COI : [1]). The references provided are a mix of profile items promoting the company founder, along with items about the company fundraising, and press releases about their app-based proposition by their partner firm, Paynetics, which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches find nothing better than the publicity-based items typical for a start-up; I am not seeing evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - PR fluff Dexxtrall (talk) 10:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete setting aside the poor behaviour and COI involved, the article is a promotional piece for a third rate app developer. Nothing in the article establishes notability. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sending it back to draftspace was appropriate before, but the creator has shown no interest in improving the articles, instead attempting to game Wikipedia. When the article was moved to draft space on 21 October, while the page main space page remained as a redirect to Draft:Maslife with a speedy deletion tag, the user blanked the deletion template and migrated the page back from draftspace to mainspace. WP:TNT Iskandar323 (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - when this page came across my queue in New Page Reviewing, I just about flagged it for A7 before seeing all the sources. No reason to keep it if those sources aren't actually non-trival coverage. Bensci54 (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if you look it up at Companies House, you'll find this is a company with one employee (including its director!), and rather underwhelming assets, that has just survived compulsory strike-off. I appreciate that the article has a number of dubious references explaining how the business is about to become enormous. But at the moment it isn't, so it's way, way too soon. In the event that the company takes off, and someone writes something meaningfully independent, the article can be recreated. Elemimele (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd possibly go for WP:G11 based off of the edit history of the page, but a standard delete is fine when the company's coverage fails to meet WP:ORGCRIT. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:13, 7 November 2021 (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.