Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RateGain

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RateGain[edit]

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

I'm not seeing significant coverage of this organisation that would meet WP:CORP. It's also notable that the article history is fairly full of accounts such as User:Marketing TeamRG, User:RG Marketing and User:Team RateGain, all clearly with a significant COI. With only one exception, all references are either to the company's own website, social media, youtube, non-RS, HTTP 404 or DNS lookup failures. GoldenRing (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be a clear case of a non-notable company trying to create a promotional "autobiography" out of insufficient sources. Deli nk (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH and as stated previously, this article is corporate spam. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is corporate spam right now. But there are at least two sources that discuss the company in-depth. Economic Times and CNBC. What do the delete !voters think of these? Lourdes 17:45, 25 January 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.