Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasaphone

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wasaphone

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

Company that lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. There are references but few that would be reliable or in depth enough to go towards notability. On a side note, I see the article Armchair Committee that is associated with Wasaphone was deleted as a sock of Orangemoody which could also be related to this one. CNMall41 (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, I see no reason to keep this. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Several of the references which are included are deadlinks or don't include the URL & having looked for them or other sources to show notability I am unable to find them.— Rod ^talk 17:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only reliable sources are reviews about the product. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH.- Mr X 03:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comprehensively fails WP:CORP. I could find nothing apart from the two brief product reviews already in the article. Note that refs 1 and 2 were deliberately misleading, making it look as if there were two reviews on each of those websites, when there was only one each. The remainder are either ads for the microphone or the company's own website. The one to Musicacristiana.biz, a defunct Spanish-language Christian music site(!) is almost certainly a fake. It has an access date of 12 April 2015, but that site was already defunct by December 2014 [1]. This has all the hallmarks of the paid-for article, springing fully formed from the hands of a "new" editor, complete with multiple perfectly formatted and highly misleading references and a perfectly formatted infobox. I concur with CNMall41 re the connection with the Orangemoody paid editing sockfarm. The creator of this article also created York Place Studios a non-notable member of the 20Collective, another article created by Orangemoody et al. Although created by an allegedly different user to the editor who created Neil Palmer Photography (yet another non-notable member of the 20Collective), this article's creator has the same modus operandi, i.e. create the page first as a redirect and then return later to turn it into an article [2], [3]. UGH! Voceditenore (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and close per WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Snow - As the nominator, and after reading through the comments and information associated with the related articles, I would support a snow delete. I am not sure what could possibly be brought forth in support of this article meeting notability guidelines at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find it particularly annoying that the article was started as a redirect and then had the redirect replaced by almost the full text of the current article the next day by the same editor. This suggests bad faith and that the author was intentionally hiding the article creation. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently, the redirect followed by full article ploy was a characteristic of the Orangemoody paid editors. Note that this article was marked as reviewed [4] by a now blocked Orangemoody sock [5]. Voceditenore (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as none of this suggests even a minimally better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 08:43, 15 December 2015 (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.