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. And salt. A fully protected redirect to Anisha Singh - which is also up for deletion - can be requested at WP:AN at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mydala

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete and Salt as literally deleted 3 times in 2010 each time was as equally blatant as the other, and also equally blatant as this currently existing article, especially since literally all of the listed sources here are advertising or clear paid republishing of it; as it is, we've known we cannot take these publications seriously because of the sheer blatancy of republishing company advertising, not what a genuine news agency publishes about genuine information.

Therefore, considering WP:SPAM and WP:NOT, we are able to delete such blatant advertising especially when it's clearly been started and existing for exactly. Since it was nominated by The Banner in 2014, there has still been no improvements and that's in fact because there are none, especially since I myself saw unsurprising mountains of clear PR and republications of it. As if it wasn't enough, no one ever actually acknowledged the blatancy of paid advertising at the 1st AfD, and the history now has only emphasized it. SwisterTwister talk 00:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is more often the case. People claim that the article should be improved by normal editing but nobody, especially the ones saying that it should be cleaned up, does anything. Effectively undermining the stance that Wikipedia is not for advertising. The Banner talk 01:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anisha Singh, considering most of the coverage is about the founder (who clearly has some recognition) rather than the company. To be honest, I hold my hands up and admit I don't know why I accepted this article at AfC back in 2014, I think I was fairly new to the process. There really is no general news coverage, of any substance, about the company (the Business Standard coverage appears to consist of barely concealed press releases). Therefore with only passing mentions and specialist e-commerce/tech website coverage it fails WP:NCORP. I'm quite shocked that no-one (other than the nominator) challenged the article at the original AfD. Simple saying it has hits on Google isn't enough. Sionk (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Business-as-usual coverage in minor spammy sources. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as persistent spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:56, 5 December 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.