Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Globehunters

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Globehunters

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

This is the third creation of this article which has been twice deleted before (G-11 and A-7). It remains what it was, unambiguous WP:SPAM. Sources hugely fail WP:RS. Respectfully urge deletion with prejudice. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Hello, I'm the article creator. Thanks for your comments. Regarding the three sources, they are all articles written by independent news sources. I have edited the content so it is less promotional and I have also added a link to the page from within wikipedia.Jamest77 (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - probably qualifies for speedy delete under G11. Reads as straight advertising. MikeMan67 (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- - - Hi, the article has also been edited so hopefully it reads less like an advert now. Thanks.Jamest77 (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's not out-and-out spam anymore, and thus not eligible for speedy deletion, but I still feel that the company does not meet WP:CORP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:33, 14 February 2014 (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.