Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newgistics

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Newgistics

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

My PROD removed with the basis of adding paywalled sources yet I was explicit with the concerns of this clearly being a paid advertisement the fact not only are there several accounts only heavily involved with this one article, but the fact the contents themselves are advertising, My PROD covers all of this genuinely and thoroughly therefore I still confirm it. SwisterTwister talk 02:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom's statement. --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm not sure I see evidence of this being a paid advertisement, or the sources being so. Certainly neither the NYT nor the Austin Statesman are. And while the article history shows some single-purpose accounts over the years, any blatantly promotional edits have been dealt with, and what remains of undue weight can be resolved via regular editing. It's not that bad to begin with. Huon (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Corporate blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as corporate spam, which conveniently includes an Office directory. No value to the project; strictly WP:PROMO on an unremarkable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2016 (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.