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. Sandstein 09:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Klook[edit]

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

Non notable, promotional,and written by undeclared paid editor.Any one of the three isreason for deletion . The refs are the usual notices about funding--according to NCORP, this alone does not count towards the necessary sources for notability. DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there seems to be press coverage of the deals with Google and Lotte, also of the intended opening of offices in the US, and the Japanese destination expansion. (If it were deleted the redirect should be reinstated.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Unambiguous advertising, created by an undeclared paid editor in violation of our terms of use. This appears to be exactly the sort of advertisement masquerading as something else ("... not identifiable as advertising to consumers ...", likely to "... mislead consumers into believing [it is] independent, impartial, or not from the sponsoring advertiser itself ...") that is considered "deceptive" – and thus illegal – in the United States under rules laid down by the Federal Trade Commission (see discussion here). Wikimedia projects are governed by American law. We do not tolerate advertisement of any kind, and we certainly cannot tolerate illegal advertisement. No objection to re-creation of the previous redirect. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the notability guideline is abundantly clear that passing the GNG is not a guarantee of inclusion. It must also must not fail our other policies and guidelines, such as WP:NOTSPAM, which is a policy. As such, it is excluded from Wikipedia as promotionalism. Notability doesn't matter. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is spam and doesn't pass GNG either in my opinion. Even if it does pass GNG in the future, TNT is the best option to get a decent article about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom and above, complete corporate spam, fails WP:SPIP, not one indication of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fail to see how anything in the article is promotional. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:36, 3 January 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.