Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dectype Info World

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dectype Info World

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

Non-notable website. Current version is substantially the same as version that was speedied per CSD A7 & G11. Taking to AfD because speedy tag was removed by a brand-new editor shortly I had reverted and warned the original author for removing the tag himself. --Finngall ^talk 15:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete - I had earlier speedied it under multiple criteria, A7 & G11. Subject has "no significant coverage" in the reliable sources, therefore does not meet the Wikipedia notability standard for companies and organizations for inclusion. It additionally reads like an advertisement. extensive database, offers content, You can find, Dectype Info World offers their Users, etc. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just opened a SPI for single-purpose account repeatedly creating this non-notable promo spam. See, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/S798072 Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete And salt. I also A7'ed it at least once. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:HOWTO. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did not find any independent reliable sources with significant coverage, necessary to establish notability. Agyle (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative note: I have blocked the article creator and one other account as sock puppets of one another. Both accounts were lobbying to keep the article. Further information is at the relevant SPI archive. AGK [•] 18:20, 20 May 2014 (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.