Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kraftly

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2017 March 9.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Joyous! | Talk 01:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kraftly

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

This is such a blatant advertisement, the history clearly shows one avid and passionate user only focusing with what the company itself would advertise therefore it's quite imaginable it's either a company employee or a paid spokesman for it, and the sources themselves are clear advertising and that's not surprising since we've established we cannot confide in these websites since they are simply so blatant at republishing company advertising. Searches unsurprisingly found this so we must seriously consider WP:SPAM and WP:NOT and acknowledge that any acceptance of this is only continually damaging ourselves as a No-Advertising encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 00:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 03:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 03:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 03:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete: Promotional article based on PR coverage. Fails
Anup [Talk] 23:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as massively promotional. If this had been tagged for G11 deletion, I would not have hesitated. Vanamonde (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatantly promotional and advertorial. I dare say the main editor of the article mistook Wikipedia to be the company site!
❯❯❯ Vanguard 14:31, 1 December 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.