Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TopCashBack

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TopCashBack

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

Random online deal site, most edits by WP:SPAs, all cited sources are obvious press releases and Google offers nothing better with which to replace them. Appears to fail WP:CORP. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Top Cash Back is a major cashback site in the USA and UK. While the article can use substantial improvement, TopCashBack.com is consistently featured heavily in a major news organizations: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=topcashback.com. FirstDrop87 (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the first block, every single one was clearly based on a press release. Can you suggest individual articles that are (a) reliable, (b) independent and (c) secondary? Also, were you solicited to take part in this debate? I notice it's only your second edit this year, well over a year since you last took any interest in AfD, and you have never edited this article. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. Sourcing is mostly WP:SPIP, resulting in a highly promotional article, violating WP:NOT. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, article written like an ad and is promotional, fails WP:SPIP, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:51, 5 March 2018 (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.