Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koolkart

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. —SpacemanSpiff 03:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Koolkart

Koolkart (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)

Company that only lasted about a year which no actual convincing and significant impact, with the sources still only being trivial and unconvincing, and the article itself only acts as a company listing, regardless of anything else. As it is, source #3 is one of the clear advertising-pieces as it literally goes into specifics about "what you can get [with the company]", so we seriously cannot willingly accept this with such still blatant advertising motivations regardless of its fate. The history certainly shows it was company-contributed and the account names certainly suggest it. Considering WP:NOT, it explicitly states we are not a business listing or catalogue nor should we be mistaken as one. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- A7 material and a WP:MEMORIAL to a failed tech company. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Of the given references, the most substantial are the Economic Times start-up piece and The Hindu piece the following year, the latter giving no hint that the venture would terminate the next month. While perhaps almost a case study in the rapid transition from start-up aspirations to demise, I don't see anything given or through my searches than suggests encyclopaedic notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 12:58, 7 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.