Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Govasool

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 01:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Govasool

Govasool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Delete and Salt please given the past 2 A7 deletions and the sheer fact this was then restarted immediately after these said deletions, and if it wasn't for the damning fact this has existed since then, it would've likely been restarted again, therefore we need to take care and acknowledge what will of course imaginably happen if it's deleted again. It's also not helping the fact these news publications cannot be taken seriously given their "pay-for" news methods, and the few links here and then in my own searches show this since it's all simply advertising.

As an interesting note, this was in fact being speedied again before being removed. To then state the obvious, the one account involved with this was an advertising-only account, so there's all in all literally nothing convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The references in the article are predominantly start-up coverage of this firm among others, to which could be added this 2009 interview with the founder. Later references in the article relate to the eMart Solutions parent, possibly due to focus shifting to white-labelling services [1], also reflected in recent coverage of the parent [2]. I don't think that is sufficient for notability of the eMart Solutions parent and certainly doesn't inherit back to their retail service, which I think fails to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt -- nothing but corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Sources available for this entity are all PR and trivial coverage. Subject fails WP:CORPDEPTH. And for salting: correct me if I'm wrong but this topic was last deleted 5 years ago (a7). That doesn't seem to be repeated abuse of creation. IMO, they should try again in 5 years. Anup [Talk] 21:29, 20 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.