Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richfeel

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. Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richfeel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Clear company advertising campaign in which several accounts were heavily involved and such activities are instantly deleted by our main policies against webhosting, WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Paid, something we've held since day 1, and there's no convincing exceptions here; certainly not when the sources are all clear paid press, notices, company-advertised financials, activities and other announcements, since it's not independent and only serves to self-advertise their own company. As the history shows, there was persistent activity to make sure this was overfocused in what their own website says, not what an actual encyclopedia publishes; unsurprising, all searches found published and republished advertised notices with their noted authorship, showing they are responsible for any motivated coverage for them, the mirrored consistency is one confirming sign. To analyze the current sources added: 1, 2 and 3 are all clearly labeled business announcements by and for the company and 4 is a similarly worded event listing, which would not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH which states Brief statements, simple announcements, press releases, anything by or for the company itself, wherever published are unacceptable which fits here because we've established no one can take such paid press seriously. We have never compromised with advertisers simply because their agendas are not what ours is, which is publishing an advert-free encyclopedia, while theirs is not. Even searching for sources shows these same unacceptable sources at here and here, complete with mirrored consistency. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Below are some sources. More are available in searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Each of those shows a clear labeled authorship and influence by the company itself, including what the company plans were that day, that instantly violates WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT because no one else would know what the company says than the company itself. To specify, links 2 and 3 are all the company 's own quotes and notices about it, there was no independent coverage. SwisterTwister talk 17:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. the sources above are clear examples of press releases, and would be no matter where published. If these are the bestthat can be found, then the company isaltogether non-notable. If it were appropriate for encyclopedic coverage, there would be much more, and much better. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC) .[reply]

• As I stated in my comment, I have listed some sources. More are available in searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertorial, with sections such as "Corporate history" & "Innovations". Wikipedia is WP:NOT a promotional platform for unremarkable businesses. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 13 March 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.