Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limeroad.com

Limeroad.com

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

My extensive PROD nearly immediately removed boldly with the thin and unconvincing basis of "news exists", but my concerns explicitly stated that the news found are simply what the company advertises about itself (which is not surprising) or then other simple trivial and unconvincing coverage. My PROD essentially explains everything so I still confirm it. SwisterTwister talk 03:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom it's been cleaned up since the PROD, but the sourcing is still really bad and too much of it actually fails verification - David Gerard (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sadly the company does find mention in the newspapers such as The Economic Times, Mint (newspaper) and Hindustan Times which makes it notable according to WP:CORP

The title seems misleading. It should be renamed to Limeroad or LimeRoad (The choice of capital R in between is deliberate here going by some articles and .com only suggests its an e-commerce website). Also the "Partnerships,"Online Traffic" and " Awards and Recognition" parts of the article are unsalvageable. It seems to be a stub after all these editing but the company seems to pass the notability test as per the verifiable sources. vivek7de--tAlK 16:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT -- unsalvageable even if the company is notable. Check out this contribution diff, which restored 3500 worth of promo content, while removing the AfD template. No point to keep this garbage in article history. No prejudice to recreation as LimeRoad if notability can be proven and better RS exist (which is not likely per the current state of things). But maybe the company will become more notable in the future, who knows? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is written like an advertisement. Runku4g (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've blocked the article creator Himanshu.butta (talk · contribs) for spamming. Discussion should focus on whether the sanitized version of the article is worth keeping. Sandstein 15:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sanitized version. It may be doomed to be a stub forever, but there are no rules against that. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sanitised version. It's a bit better, but I'm still unconvinced by the sourcing. (Also, why are we sourcing claims about an Indian company's activities in India to not merely an English paper, but an English tabloid.) - David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: did you mean for there to be a whole new discussion after the break, or is there a duplicate !vote above? Safehaven86 (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It was specifically phrased as discussion of the sanitised version, so I proceeded discussing that in particular as should be reasonably clear from both Sandstein's actual words and mine - David Gerard (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your original vote was also in reference to the cleaned up version, hence my inquiry here. I don't think it's standard to !vote twice at AFDs. I also don't think it's standard to respond to good-faith questions with condescension, but it appears irresistible for you to do so. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am saddened by your assumption of bad faith - David Gerard (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I addressed a reasonable and legitimate question directly to a different editor, and you responded with the assertion that the answer to my question was "reasonably clear." Obviously it wasn't "reasonably clear" to me, otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question. And you didn't exactly "proceed with discussion", you in fact cast a whole new !vote, hence my very reasonable question about whether users were supposed to cast entirely new !votes after the break, or merely proceed with a discussion of a particular version of the article. The bad faith here was yours, not mine. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is still the same discussion, so everybody's opinion only counts once. Sandstein 05:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the "sanitised version" is equally unconvincing. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to be sanitized or not to be, that is the question: whether 'tis nobler to accept one version over the other; to suffer the slings and arrows of sources that are only PR, repackaged PR, company announcements, company sourced interviews, mundane financial information - Or to take arms against a sea of promotion and say, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:PROMO. Alas, to be lacking in GNG and CORPDEPTH is the true state of each version. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If this article does get deleted then I also suggest putting up Voonik for deletion as it has the same "sea of promotion" in it. vivek7de--tAlK 19:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]