Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paymatrix

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 13:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paymatrix[edit]

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

Submitting to AfD since this went thru AfC, but there are no sources & it's a one year old company with no apparent claims to meeting WP:GNG. Reads like a WP:PROMO piece. JamesG5 (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft: The article history indicates that it hasn't gone through the AfC process (which it should have no chance of passing, given its complete lack of references) but was just created in mainspace with the AfC tag. Probably the right thing to do would be to move it to Draft. (That said, I doubt an article on an online service whose Alexa rating is 164,107 in its operating country will come through.) AllyD (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwiftyPeep (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwiftyPeep (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft or Delete as unreferenced. Prefer move to draft, although it is is likely to expire there. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. As it is clear that this is going to be Corporate spam. Light2021 (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete alone only because it's clear company advertising and there's enough showing it violates our overall policies, there's no hopes of sufficient improvements when it's company self-motivated. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete --I think it will be a snowball's chance in hell that it will make the cut at AFC even with radical changes from the current version.Winged Blades^Godric 11:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROMOTION a strong case for speedy.FITINDIA (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could have been speedy deleted under {{db-g11}}. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2017 (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.