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 speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OSell[edit]

OSell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. The article has plenty of references, but vast majority are either press releases or self-published (company's own website, etc.). There are few minor news stories but they mention the company in passing, discussing some of its products, or acquisitions (including a warehouse in Toronto...). I don't see what makes this company pass the notability criteria. Considering that this type of an article is usually created by a paid-for editor, I'd also like to ask its creator User:Rzafar if s/he would like to update his/her statement at User:Rzafar#Volunteer.2Fhired_Content about not having done any paid for articles? That statement is from June 2016 and this article suggest this may no longer be true. PS. Editors who comment here may want to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OConnect by the same user (but with even worse refs). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete and I've tagged it as G11 also - David Gerard (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 25 August 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.