Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CreditMantri.com

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. Michig (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CreditMantri.com

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

pure advertisement .Not one of the sources are reliable for notability. The Economic times is simply a reprint of the press release, as is usual for that source. The others are no better. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- strictly advertising with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing but blatant promotions. No significance for being encyclopedic genuine. Light2021 (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is exactly what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as well. Anup [Talk] 07:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am seeing nothing better than the routine announcements and passing coverage typical for start-ups. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom and above.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 12:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient WP:RS coverage for notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as what's listed is simply fluff and puff with none of it ever becoming actual substance for notability, this is imaginably part of another PR camapaign as this is usually the style of if, simply tossing whatever triviality is available but not actually adding significance. SwisterTwister talk 16:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is written like and advertisement page, should be deleted. Jessie1979 (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 20:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]

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.