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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indiepay[edit]

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

Essentially actually speedy A7 and G11 material but it may be ridiculously removed with the "sponsors" claims but all of this is in fact an advertisement, focusing with only things the company would say itself, and my own searches are then finding nothing at all aside from a few mere mentions. Certainly nothing for actual independent notability and substance. PROD was in fact boldly and ridiculously removed with the basis of "new article, let it improve" yet no improvements have happened and this was an in fact from the start, not only that the user was "Indiepay" but a second account came later, this was also then nominated for speedy deletion but also removed. SwisterTwister talk 03:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are not providing any significant coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- purely spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one is near speedy material. There's hardly anything available in RS. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 16:08, 10 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.