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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vidooly[edit]

Vidooly (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)

Small non-notable firm. The references here are almost all brief notices of funding, which is never enough to show notability; the others are essentially PR. DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (edited) Wasn't expecting this after the article was sent to the draft space, re-reviewed and re-admitted to the mainspace earlier by Paul 012. A bit frustrating on my part. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 18:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete References provided in the aforementioned article does not establish notability of the firm.–Celestina007 (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article was previously draftified due to COI concerns, but this wasn't properly noted in the edit summary. I wasn't aware of this when I reverted the draftification and moved it back to main space, but I didn't find any issues with COI nor notability anyway. IMO the coverage by Tech in Asia is more in-depth than purely routine coverage of business movements, though I don't know enough about the neutrality of the Indian sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul 012:--In case you missed it, all COI/PAID articles must be vetted through AFC.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Godric on Leave, I'm aware, thanks. That's why I noted in an edit summary that I considered the move to be a manual review. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. At best reads like ad copy or history of funding. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Pseudo-notable company.Usual promotional sources.Is just a history of their fundings and acquirements.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:42, 8 November 2017 (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.