Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autotask Corporation

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Autotask Corporation

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Queried speedy delete (asked in my user talk page) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark: requested to reconsider the delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Per Consensus I'll start by contesting the contested speedy delete which while good faith was under WP:G11 and by my strong belief fails blatant and unambiguous advertising. WP:FIELD also cautions against deleting under G11 unless unambiguously proven. However there have been other issues identified in the article's tainted past and at AfD it is possible other issues will be brought forward. Examination of article history will reveal I improved then moved the article to mainspace about a day ago. Autotask came to my attention as a possible merge/redirect target for Soonr. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have just come across a content issue that means I do not wish to continue with the article in its current form at this time, and especially given the tainted history of this incarnation. I leave the option for anyone to continue with it ... On that basis I will go with the discussion consensus.. My apologies for any time wasted by people on this. I am looking for Scuba Project to introduce me to a trout. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll stand by the G11 challenge and careful inspection would have noted some neutralising comments. Perhaps far less than I like overall and not necessarily easy to spot. From my point of veiw i've lost the ability to query wikipedia for autotask and get a gist of what it's about. But there is another issue while this pragmatically has to be let go. That's not to say that I don't generally respect ye admins and reviewers ... Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is nothing more than an advertisement based entirely on basic business announcements that literally any business will receive - there is nothing significant about it and there's certainly no coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the editor who nominated for speedy, this is simply a business listing advertisement, masquerading as an article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:39, 6 June 2018 (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.