Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IndianCashback.com

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. DGG ( talk ) 09:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IndianCashback.com

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

Lacks notability - all sources are press releases or otherwise affiliated with the company, and I'm unable to find any secondary sources about this company/website. Contested prod, and previously declined speedy. bonadea contributions talk 08:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 09:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 09:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 09:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 09:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability per WP:WEB, and no mention on secondary, WP:RS, just lots of self-promotion on social media etc. Norvoid (talk) 11:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a run-of-the-mill site. Start-up PR does not bring notability; fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly not yet notable with no convincingly better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 21:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability given in the article. Note, I am the admin who reviewed and declined the speedy deletion request. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per talk page. ----MarkYabloko 12:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is completely promotional and self-serving. Search brings up nothing reliable. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all above reasons. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:01, 24 November 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.