Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gbets (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 20:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Gbets

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Gbets
• Articles for deletion/Gbets (2nd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Gbets (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)

Just as before, there is no meaningful coverage or independent reliable sources that have significant coverage. This is a a promotional and likely paid for article that fails NCORP/NWEB. Searching archives gave nothing as well. Praxidicae (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 18:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 18:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SPAM. Not even wrong. Bearian (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

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.