Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QuicksellOnline

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. Kurykh (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

QuicksellOnline

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

Non-notable site/company. No evidence of substantial coverage in RS that I can find. Article was appears to have been created b someone with a COI (although they've since tried to remove evidence of that). Fyddlestix (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a yet-to-launch e-commerce site, in which circumstance it is unsurprising that no evidence of attained encyclopaedic notability (WP:NWEB, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG) can be found. It is also worded as an advertisement ("Our customer friendly features") which combined with the lack of claim of notability would have made CSD A7+G11 possible, but at this stage maybe it is better to let the AfD take its course. AllyD (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: would have speedied this per WP:G11. --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2017 (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.