Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presskr,Inc

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. I've salted this and other previously used titles. --joe decker ^talk 14:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presskr,Inc

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This is a spam article about a non-notable website which has been speedy deleted six times before as Presskr (now salted), Presskr Classified, Presskr.com and a further three times at Draft:Presskr, and the repeated draft submissions have all been declined. Two WP:SPIs are creating the various identical copies - see User_talk:Legacy2015 and User_talk:Chrish1984 for the messages posted to them, and their contribution histories for the scope of their interests (the only other contributions shown being articles about the founder of the site).

The site itself is non-notable with no reliable third party coverage, just a selection of press releases. The claim that the site "became the most visited website India after six months of operation" is contradicted iby the supplied reference and claims of significance greatly exaggerated (potential audience being quite a different thing from actual audience).

The content of the article is purely about the services the site provides and is entirely promotional in nature ("presskr gained prominence due to its large selection of second-hand item", "items listed on Presskr include electronics, pets, cars and, vehicles and other categories including land and property is absolutely free for everyone" etc.)

This should clearly be speedily deleted again. I am bringing this to AfD because speedy deletion was contested - this time, one of the two users created the article and the other contested the speedy nomination. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Legacy2015 and User:Chrish1984 are now confirmed to be sockmaster and socpuppet respectively. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you richard as previous editor wasn't successful with his article therefore he attempt several times but this is his fault but this doesn't meant that the Article is inappropriate.even I agree with Chrish like he said you should also see the similar Olx page that have bunch of issue. I voted for the Article that shouldn't be delete as I saw the article closely even I am 100% sure the Presskr company is legitimate and worthy to be in wikipedia Article. Ain619 (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC) — Ain619 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked as promotional meat puppet and/or sock puppet. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Legacy2015.RichardOSmith (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear editor I agree with Ain that the following article is worthy to become encyclopedia the reason is Presskr is legitimate Company as far as I am concerned I think the previous editor was try hard to write article about presskr but unfortunately he wasn't successful after many attempts he made therefore another editor try to write about them so what is yhe problem. If any editor can't successful with their editing skill it's doesn't meant that subject is spamy right lets say I wanna writr about Ebay but several times I got decline from administration which I have lack on my writing skill but o doesn't meant that the company os spamy however they don't even know about it whatever we are discussing here. So I will recommend not to delete Presskr, Inc as the company is legitimate. Thank You Skynetsolutions707 (talk) 08:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC) — Skynetsolutions707 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Skynetsolutions707 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked as promotional meat puppet and/or sock puppet. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Legacy2015. Mkdw ^talk 05:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was not an advertisement neither spamy, but VALUABLE INFORMATION about our Indian emerging classifieds product that everyone on the Internet seeks on Wikipedia! – Help Indian E-Commerce Ain619 (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Blocked as promotional meat puppet and/or sock puppet. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Legacy2015.RichardOSmith (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Ain619 has implicitly !voted keep above as well. RichardOSmith (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the declared WP:COI. RichardOSmith (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the question is not whether the company is "legitimate" but whether it is notable, and it is very clear that this company is not. The article is very spammy but that can be fixed with editing by people who are not affiliated with the company - the lack of notability and significant coverage in third-party sources cannot be fixed, however. In addition to the three mainspace articles and one draft mentioned in the nomination, there's also Draft:Pressker and Draft:Presskr.com - an interesting online shopping website, the latter of which has not (yet) been deleted. A few other single-purpose editors have also been involved in creating and recreating the articles over the last six months (but that's a question for SPI, not this discussion.) Clear conflict of interest, at any rate, as also shown above. --bonadea contributions talk 11:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at first I would like to clear that I’m not associated nor affiliate with any company including Presskr. However I just would like to create the article about the said subject where people can know about Indian Wikipedia website. There’s several article exists and nobody is considering on them. Here i got some link you might be you wanna consider on them too, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olx.ph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLX these article is already exists on Wikipedia but you didn’t show your any interest, i was expecting that Wikipedia welcome & help new editor on their community but i wasn’t expect that there is nobody for helping to each other instead they will pull your legs. As far as i am concerned with due respect Mr talk and talk is only the person who don’t wanna put their effort rather then they find clues to article get deleted. Even i noticed the both user are same person who are keep trying to delete the article. This is not the way sir to helping your junior editor even if your senior and expert your should show your some help and motive and junior editor. Anyways thank you for everything — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.221.136.164 (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC) — 101.221.136.164 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. AllyD (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt all name variants: I recognise this from previously posted variants. It has the same inflated claims ("According to statistics from Alexa Internet Presskr became the most visited website India", with the associated Alexa link giving 5247th in India). Startup coverage and press releases are not enough: fails WP:NWEB, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notable however I am not administration but I look closely the entire article and it's should be in encyclopedia as I found the reliable sources and cited according. The article consider to be notable it's help the readers. CheersMaboihi (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC) — Maboihi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked as promotional meat puppet and/or sock puppet. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Legacy2015. Mkdw ^talk 05:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- When you added citations to the article it was not as user Maboihi. You appear to be admitting that you are another sockpuppet of Legacy2015. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NWEB. -KH-1 (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of independent sources. Sbwoodside (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. No notability. A waste of time for editors to continually have to address this. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW delete as there's nothing at all to suggest even a minimally better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 08:44, 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.