Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tripfez

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 21:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tripfez[edit]

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

Clear advertisement with only published adn republished business announcements, listings, trivial passing mentions, quotes and similar, even going as far to contain sources that are clear in PR-focused sections of the select publications, none of which compromise in our policies, including ones that state against advertising. Searches found pages and pages of published and republished PR announcements, which is alone to not even satisfy the simplest suggestive guidelines, which themselves state "Sources must be independent, significant and substantial and not simple business announcements and mentions" and there's clear COI here. SwisterTwister talk 07:54, 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)} 08:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; this is advertorial content on a subject with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly advertising, and the citation overkill isn't helping the case for notability. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way way WP:TOOSOON. If you look at the sources carefully, most of them are not exactly what we call RS, and some of them are simply quotes by the founder. Honestly, this looks like an undisclosed paid editing job - if it is then the company should be advised that it is not a wise choice to do it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BBC and Forbes cover this company quite comprehensively. I'd like to hear the comments of the delete !voters on these sources. Lourdes 17:56, 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.