Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ReGlobe (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:11, 4 September 2015

ReGlobe

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

Essentially the same as the article deleted twice previously, once by speedy,oce by CSD. Promotional and not notable. The references are basically press releases or articles based on them ,or mere notices. The contents is promotional , using unsupported terms of praise "quickly with minimum effort" ; "correct value" and descriptions of its routine operations which are exactly like all used electronic commerce sites. Veryborderline notable at best, and borderline notability plus promotionalism is a reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 07:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I actually saw when this was nominated and was going to comment but I wanted to wait. Now I suppose, there could be better coverage with my searches here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment I won't vote here, too close to my wheelhouse. The article seems pretty well sourced and the original editor seems to be actively working on promotional tone concerns. 009o9 (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 03:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 09:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company. They do a thing. They didn't invent the thing and aren't even particularly special at the thing. Yeah that's not good rationale for being notable.--Savonneux (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hard to add much to the nominator's evaluation, it is spot on. The company is not innovative, or a trendsetter. It is fairly new, and is generally only briefly mention as participating in the industry. What it needs is dedicated articles about it in notable sources, and I don't see that. Scr★pIron^IV 17:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 <small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —[[WP:☮|<font color="Green ">☮</font>]][[User:Jaaron95|<font color="CornflowerBlue" face="Times">'''JAaron95'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Jaaron95|<font color="Green" face= "Times">Talk</font>]]</sup>  09:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|ReGlobe (2nd nomination)]]</div><!-- Please add new comments below this line -->
 *'''Delete''' This is a company. They do a thing. They didn't invent the thing and aren't even particularly special at the thing. Yeah that's not good rationale for being notable.--[[User:Savonneux|Savonneux]] ([[User talk:Savonneux|talk]]) 05:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' Hard to add much to the nominator's evaluation, it is spot on. The company is not innovative, or a trendsetter.  It is fairly new, and is generally only briefly mention as participating in the industry. What it needs is dedicated articles about it in notable sources, and I don't see that. '''[[User:ScrapIronIV|<span style="color:#306b1e">Scr<span style="background:#0404B4;border-radius:7px;color:#FFFFFF">★</span>pIron</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:ScrapIronIV|<span style="color:#6E6E6E">IV</span>]]</sup>''' 17:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)