Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WittyFeed (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. RL0919 (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WittyFeed

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

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

Seems like a fairly clear case of UPE. The article today remains overwhelmingly consistent with the version that was created by a sock and thus should really be G5 despite the number of intervening edits. Previous AfD closed with no consensus. There could be a notable topic here, but UPE and DENY suggest the right outcome remains a delete. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this text created by a confirmed sockpuppet, and amplified by a flock of kamikaze accounts, because its subject fails WP:NCORP. -The Gnome (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gimubrc (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too much promotion. Sources read as obvious promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are classic cases of advertorial promotion with the usual format and profile photos. WP:TOOSOON applies. Agree with nom too. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, references don't show WP:GNG .THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2019 (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.