Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saholic

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 02:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saholic

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

Unsurprisingly this is another company-motivated advertisement (see recent tagging of mine), not only because the information and sources are literally advertising anything they would ever say such as their services, their business plans and actions, client information, the listed sources are all unconvincing, not helping since they are all publications known for republishing news and costuming it as news; my own searches literally found such republications, hence there's nothing to take both seriously and confidently.

There's no need to keep such blatancy especially since it has no substance or otherwise convincing materials, I had speedied this before but it's clear we'll need ammunition for any future concerns, not to mention because the various advertising-only accounts, all of which have the essences of company influences. As it is this was mistakenly accepted by someone in April 2014 who never cared to examine both the advertising materials or the fact it was company-motivated. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per
WP:Promo. Non-noteable tech company - article written with a promotional tone note suitable for WP. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: The given references are routine announcements and I am locating nothing better. I had been going to suggest a redirect to the parent
Spice Group but that page lacks references and the company website is no longer available, preventing basic verification. And this recent Financial Express item indicates the brand and parent may now be part of an Ominiventures Private Ltd.) AllyD (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails
Anup [Talk] 15:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Fails notability criterion and
❯❯❯ Vanguard 08:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. non notable and advertising. This could probably have been a speedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 20:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - purely promotional and no evidence of notability; I'm surprised it has lasted this long Spiderone 11:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - solely here to exist for spam page. Sagecandor (talk) 02:53, 22 November 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.