Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bookmyshow

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bookmyshow (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)

Promotional article. Created as part of an apparent promotional cluster. Creators have improved the article from its previous dismal state, but, even given the RS mentions present, very little evidence of notability that passes WP:CORP. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish Hemrajani from the same cluster - creator keeps removing tags and tried removing that AFD. David Gerard (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepNotable website. Promotional content should be removed. 1. --John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so notable subject with bad article? - David Gerard (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, this is actually entirely PR with not only the information focusing with what only clients and investors would want to know, but the sources are symmetrical with PR also; none of it is amounting to both substance and non-PR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 19:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this is entirely advertorial where it hints at G11, as my analysis shows above; none of this comes to substance or how any supposed "improvements" would be convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not sure if this is DEL4 territory, but it's not far removed. Between the poor promotional-esque prose (DEL4), the subject's debatable notability (DEL8), and, to a lesser extent, the sockpuppetry, I believe deletion would be consistent with policy. Rebbing 01:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've amended the rationale for my vote as it's not clear the sockpuppetry is connected with the article—something I ought to have verified before mentioning it. Rebbing 23:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as part of the COI walled garden. The subject is not notable per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:08, 27 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.