- 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neterra[edit]
- Neterra (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)
Reads mostly like an advert. Highly promotional - RichT|C|E-Mail 13:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - but revert to the last version without all the advertising. . .Mean as custard (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even if the article is rewritten to get rid of the promotional language, I still don't see the topic as qualifying under WP:NCORP. Owen× ☎ 19:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it violates the policy WP:NOT, in particular the passage saying Wikipedia is not Advertising, marketing, publicity, or public relations. Due to the reference spam in this article, I believe that this WP:policy violation can suffice as a rationale to justify deletion. The specific notability guideline for corporations, WP:NCORP, does not seem to be met either after quick WP:GOOGLE search. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:51, 27 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.