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. ✗plicit 23:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appreneur[edit]

Appreneur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This is a neologism with no actual reliable sourcing that reads like OR/an essay. lizthegrey (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lizthegrey (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Technology, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not only is it non-notable, it's blatant plagiarism of Reference 1, with minor re-wordings to avoid detection. I suspect a COI edit at the very least (someone connected to AppClover, the site behind one of the references), and the independence of the other sources is not at all clear. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't believe this commercial puff piece survived undetected for 11 years. Had I seen it when it was created, I might have speedied it as CSD:G11 spam. But at this point, we'll have to go through the AfD process. Owen× ☎ 16:11, 11 November 2023 (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.