Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postidal

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Postidal

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

completely non-notable company sourced to blackhat SEO and press releases. No meaningful coverage in any reliable source. CUPIDICAE💕 14:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not meet notability criteria; sources are trash — billinghurst sDrewth 00:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that we have deleted Draft:Postidal in the same time frame. So it looks like that we have either someone sockpuppeting Special:DeletedContributions/Febin96 or we have a situation where there is a commercial incentive (paid editing) to create the article. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've looked for sourcing, and find nothing at all that is reliable, secondary and independent, certainly nothing that would establish notability per
WP:NCORP. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Do not Delete. This company is a start up. And this stub does have plenty of sources in accordance to Wikiguidelines for stubs. --Febin96 (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
this page. Perryprog (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, per nomination. Every source is blatantly from unreliable outlets (blackhat SEO stuff). Perryprog (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete. I think it should stay live --Jonathancur1234 (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Striking comment. Confirmed sock puppet of Febin96. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete This article is good and the sources june fine. Whoever wrote it did a decent good job --Sharelovenothate (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admin be aware. Some of these comments seem to be from sockpuppets. Why do I say that? Because this article started as a stub, I see, and it could be asked to be improved or expanded. This article never was given a chance to be improved. It was just nominated for deletion with no second chance. I also find it weird, very weird, that the same Admin and user who asked for the nomination of deletion of this article also nominated for deletion the Spanish version of this article.Sharelovenothate (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just find it weird. I am NOT saying that I am right. Lastly, I'll leave this here:

"Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." According to Wikipedia guidelines.Sharelovenothate (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Striking comment. Confirmed sock puppet of Febin96. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails
WP:CORPDEPTH --Devoke water 11:24, 18 March 2021 (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.