Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:06, 10 October 2016

Badgeville

Badgeville (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)

Not only was my specific and exact PROD removed as part of an apparent massremoval of PRODs, but the listed concerns explicitly showing this was yet another paid advertisement by several involved accounts was not taken seriously, so I will note again that literally everything here still is in fact PR, and there's no sensible method of sugarcoating it as it's only making not only the article seem worse but the encyclopedia as well, while simultaneously damning the cleanliness of a non-advertising environment. In fact what was replaced after the PROD, was literally three PR sources listing and compiling exactly what the company wanted to advertise itself, and it's apparent because that's the only mindset advertisers have with these articles (they couldn't ever care about actually substantiating an article, if all that matters is a fluffed-puffed advertisement), and there's nothing to suggest the PR awards and specifics about this company, suggest otherwise. The only solution of actually solving these advertisements is not only to bar them from happening but also to remove these that exist from influencing others. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 05:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America 05:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – Various source searches are providing a great deal of coverage about this company. North America 05:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - When there's such a blatancy of paid advertising and the supplying their entire lines of supposed "news" of publishing exactly this, anyone who actually sensibly analyzes the listed sources shows it's all PR and there's nothing to sugarcoat or suggest otherwise, and that's exactly what's expected from such a new company like this and one whose business environment involves nothing but PR, especially when it comes to company advertising. No amount of supposedly numbered news can suggest anything else if it's all PR and if that's exactly why this article was started to begin with. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – Also, I deprodded the article, but it was not "mass removed". These WP:ASPERSIONS need to immediately stop, because they are uncivil in nature and suggest bad faith. My edits are educated, and are based upon article potential, source searches, and other variables. North America 06:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment to closer - I only mention this because it is hounding and personal when a user is specifically targeted by having their PRODs removed all within minutes (as the contribs will show), including where the concerns have been genuine and specific. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product)
• AfD debates