Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hotmobile

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. JohnCD (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hotmobile

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

Unnotable company that fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Article created as promo by managing partner of company. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the request for deletion for the "Hotmobile" Article We have posted an article today, about "Hotmobile" and have seen a request for deletion. Our company and brand are notable, in Belgium and more and more internationally. So we don't understand why this request for deletion would be accepted. In fact, the three first references we mentioned under our article are secondary: - One proving that the brand Hotmobile was active as from 2004 on the internet (Archive.org resource) - One proving that the brand is registered (benelux office of brands and intelectual property) - One proving that our company is an incorporated official company in Belgium (Data bank of belgian companies). In Belgium, you must accomplish quite a bit of work to incorporate a company and register a brand. This data is now public, and notable, and we believe the article is serious.

--MathieuFranceMediafield (talk) 06:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The provided references are evidence of existence, but not notability and I have found no reliable 3rd party sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The second half of the article is essentially a prospectus for what the company intends/hopes for the future (WP:CRYSTAL nos. 3 and 5). AllyD (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per AllyD and nom, obviously there's a major COI issue with the article creator as well - whom appears to be using a shared account as well, based on their language. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article lands somewhere between WP:SPAM and WP:Too soon. Yes, the company exists, but no, it's not notable at this time. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:13, 19 May 2013 (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.