Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paperstone

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} 18:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paperstone

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

Online office supplies retailer with 17 employees. Comprehensively fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. All references are either to directory listings, the company's website, or refer to utterly non-notable "awards" from BOSS (British Office Supplies and Services Federation) and IDS which describes itself as "an interactive news and comment driven website that provides daily industry information, features and advice for the online dealer community". I can find nothing better. This has all the hallmarks of the paid-for article, springing fully formed from the hands of a "new" editor, complete with multiple perfectly formatted references (masquerading as independent reliable sources) and a perfectly formatted infobox. It also has all the hallmarks of the Orangemoody paid editing sockfarm, i.e. a series of minor edits to become autoconfirmed, followed by creating the page first as an implausible redirect and then returning a week later to turn it into an article [1]. The page was marked as patrolled [2] by a confirmed Orangemoody sock [3]. Note this is not to be confused with PaperStone (an equally non-notable building material). Voceditenore (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator.4meter4 (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly non notable, totally unsatisfactory refs. I considered using A7 , except that an AfD will give a basis for speedy on any recreation. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even absent the allegations of paid/WP:COI editing, the quality of article's references fall far closer to the "A7 threshold" than they do to the most generous possible threshold to avoid deletion at AFD. Also, the vast majority of companies with only £2 million of revenue in a year will fail WP:N. Any admin seeing this after it's been open 24 hours should consider a WP:SNOW-close if the overall circumstances fit. Also, if this winds up being speedy-deleted as a page created by a banned or blocked editor AND if there is enough participation at this AFD that it could have been deleted by an early-close of this AFD, consider closing the AFD as "deletion pre-empted by speedy deletion, but closing this AFD as DELETE to allow for speedy-deletion if it is re-created." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with davidwr. Unfortunately, Neil Palmer Photography, another article almost surely from this sockfarm and likewise hopelessly non-notable, was speedy deleted as G11 (unambiguous advertising) in the middle of its AfD which had 8 "deletes" and 0 "keeps". Not an optimal result. Voceditenore (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2015 (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.