Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whale Path

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 speedy delete. per WP:SNOW Bishonen | talk 18:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whale Path[edit]

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

Article by paid editor on totally non notable company. All the refs are simply notices of PR about it as a start up--it doesn't actually have any accomplishments as yet. That's what we call "not yet notable". We wouldn't make an article of a musician whose most important activity was raising money to make their first recording but had not yet done so, or an author who had gotten a grant to write their first book, but has not yet written it. Why should we do it for a company? DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NCORP. Sources are inadequate per WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Jbh ^Talk 15:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and preferably speedily. Purely promotional and obviously a case of someone 'mistakenly' believing that Wikipedia is another LinkedIn, not understanding the difference between an Encyclopedia and a comercial networking site or the Yellow Pages.. Whether it is part of the Orangemoody paid spamming campaign or not, DGG has said all that needs to be said already. Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be used for profit in this way at the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that dedicated users spend building this encyclopedia which in spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended to be an additional business networking platform. Whether the text itself sounds promotional or not, the article is an advert and a plethora of sources has never been an automatic assumption of notability.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not much for an article yet and there are no better sources thus no improvement. SwisterTwister talk 21:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising via a paid advocate. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOT ADVERT. Also, undisclosed paid, blocked user wasting volunteers time. Widefox; talk 00:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete finally now, it should have been possible to speedy this back in May when I reported gross irregularities in this user's edits, or a few days later when I discovered and then reported this specific article with the prescient comment "This has the feel of a factory for paid editing with probable involvement of other accounts." This must now be deleted for the plainly sufficient WP integrity reasons enunciated by nominator DGG , Kudpung, and Widefox. Brianhe (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2015 (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.