Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 June 25

LoopMe – Complicated G11 deletion endorsed (in the procedural sense) There seems to be consensus to ECP-salt the mainspace title There seems to be consensus to allow Draft:LoopMe to remain undeleted. There are some calls to block the nominator, but not enough to form a consensus for that action; it can be pursued at standard forums for user conduct actions which DRV isn't. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 20:44, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
LoopMe (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (revisions`\|`restore) I'm contesting the deletion of the LoopMe article under G11 (unambiguous advertising). I believe this deletion was in error and the article meets Wikipedia's notability standards. LoopMe is a significant UK-based adtech company with extensive coverage in independent, tier-one trade publications. The article is sourced primarily in AdExchanger, TechCrunch, Broadcasting+Cable, MediaPost, Digiday, and ExchangeWire (all highly renowned publications!). LoopMe has also been used as a data source for articles in non-trade publications including the BBC, CNBC and Forbes. A G11 deletion assumes the article's purpose is to promote the company. But the article describes what LoopMe does (i.e. its business model, history, products, and industry standing) in neutral, factual language. It doesn't use marketing claims; it reports on third-party coverage. Describing a company's achievements, awards, and products is encyclopedic, not promotional. Wikipedia has similar articles on Criteo, Databricks, and other adtech/martech companies. The product descriptions are grounded in trade publication reporting, not company marketing copy. I'm more than happy for neutral editors to review the article and toning down any language that reads as promotional. The article was deleted without discussion an opportunity for improvement before removal. I'm requesting restoration so the article can be reviewed and improved by the community. Hannahloopme (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Even this request reads like a promotional piece. If the article is written even close to the same tone and manner as this then you are better off to walk away and let someone else create it from scratch, if the company is indeed notable. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 09:45, 25 June 2026 (UTC) I appreciate what you're saying but I'm just trying to make my case! Hannahloopme (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Its written in promotional language and is a paid for article that was restored to mainspace 3 times on successive days by the nominator after 3 different admins deleted it as a g11 I suggest that we endorse and salt. Multiple creations in these circumstances is disruptive and I question whether we should allow the nominator to continue editing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Please can you define promotional language? I wholeheartedly believe that I have been neutral in tone and I've given tons and tons of citations - both industry-specific press and in the general press (e.g. BBC). Hannahloopme (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC) its ref bombed and far from neutral. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Please do not ask the volunteer editors at DRV to assist you (a paid editor) in writing or rewriting your article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC) To add - I complied with Wikipedia's policies in disclosing my affiliation to the subject too! Hannahloopme (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Thats honestly the bare minimum and you don't get credit in the bank for that Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:12, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Endorse and SALT per Spartaz. I appreciate the appellant declaring her paid editing status--eventually, after being prodded to do so by an admin. But in recreating the article in mainspace a day after it was deleted, she was not only violating WP:PAID/WP:COI, but also engaging in an edit war. The 8 June 2026 revision removed a lengthy product listing section, but was otherwise essentially identical to the one deleted the previous day, promotional tone and all. While I'm not yet ready to swing the ban hammer, if there's any attempt to circumvent the SALT with title-gaming, a p-block from mainspace is in order. Owen× ☎ 11:25, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Please can you try to appreciate that I've been trying my very best to stick to Wikipedia's rules. I added a paid disclosure note as soon as I found out that was required. I can infer the meaning of edit war but that wasn't my intention. I'm trying my best to understand and adhere to a complex system of rules. I'm also confused because so many similar companies have pages with far fewer citations: Quantcast, Criteo, OpenX etc - so I don't understand how those pages are live when LoopMe was taken down? Hannahloopme (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2026 (UTC) I understand how daunting it can be for a new user on Wikipedia to learn our elaborate and often complex policies and guidelines. But let me boil things down to this: on 5 June, you were notified that the article was tagged for speedy deletion, along with a clear explanation of the reason for tagging, and links to relevant policy and steps to contest such a deletion. You did not engage with the editor placing the notice on your Talk page, nor follow the guidelines to contest it. The article was deleted on Sunday, 7 June, at 4pm UK time. The next morning, Monday at 08:46 UK time, you simply recreated the article, minus one section. This does not come across as the action of someone who is engaging with Wikipedia in good faith. Arguments pointing to other companies with articles here are typically rejected; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for details. As for earned vs. paid, how long would it take us to find examples of LoopMe buying ad space in one of MediaPost's 20+ publications? I don't think you want to go down that path. In general, trade journals are considered non-independent sources in almost all cases. Owen× ☎ 15:10, 25 June 2026 (UTC) I have restored to Draft:LoopMe so non-admins can comment. Personally I'm not seeing the "unambiguous advertising or promotion" but no comment on notability. I also note it was accepted via AfC in April, so this probably deserves discussion at AfD rather than speed deletion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 25 June 2026 (UTC) To take one of many examples, the paragraph starting with, LoopMe has contributed to broader industry discussion on AI through publications and podcasts doesn't strike you as corporate marketing brochure penmanship? The repeated reliance on paid trade rag MediaPost for many of the claims is itself a red flag. Owen× ☎ 11:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC) MediaPost articles are earned not paid! Hannahloopme (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2026 (UTC) What does that mean ? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Earned media, I suspect. Left guide (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC) well that's a new concept to me. The problem with marketeers is an inability to communicate in a way that people who live outside their world can readily understand. I'm kind of blown away that the distinction appears something necessary to say. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:39, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Yes exactly I was countering the claim that I was relying on articles in a 'paid trad rag'. Yes it's a trade publication. But we're talking about earned media rather than articles which you pay for. Hannahloopme (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC) Technically overturn G11 but keep in draftspace. The article is not exclusively promotional and would not need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as [an] encyclopedia [article], as required by the policy. That said, this article as written would stand zero chance at AFD. Keeping it in draftspace allows for improvement to encyclopedic standards (both for notability and POV) to eventually be restored as a better article, or to be abandoned and G13ed. No opinion on whether or not the mainspace title should be salted. Frank Anchor 12:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Endorse G11 If I had come across this in the AFC process I would have flagged it there for G11 as well. This is not an encyclopedic article written about a subject. It's a promotional fluff piece discussing how much affect they have had on the industry and boasting about the "coverage" they have recieved. It needs to be rewritten from the ground up by someone else. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:57, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Endorse. I can find all of four sentences that could survive unchanged in a neutrally-written article, two of them dubiously so. —Cryptic 13:36, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Really? I would be curious for a sentence-by-sentence breakdown. Here are six that are factual and neutral and I'm not even halfway down the article.... LoopMe is an advertising technology (AdTech) company headquartered in London, United Kingdom. In January 2022, LoopMe received a $120 million investment from private equity firm Mayfair Equity Partners, valuing the company at approximately $200 million LoopMe was founded in 2012 by Stephen Upstone and Marco van de Bergh, two executives who had previously worked together in mobile advertising at Ad Infuse (later acquired by Velti) In 2022, former OMD (part of Omnicom) CEO Mainardo de Nardis was appointed as Chair of LoopMe's board of directors. In December 2024, LoopMe acquired Chartboost from Zynga, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Take-Two Interactive (Nasdaq: TTWO), for an undisclosed sum. Zynga had originally acquired Chartboost in 2022 for $250 million Chartboost is a mobile programmatic advertising and monetization platform that connects app developers with marketers through immersive in-app advertising experiences, and operates a mediation business for gaming publishers Hannahloopme (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Please do not ask the volunteer editors at DRV for assistance in writing or rewriting an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC) Noted! Hannahloopme (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2026 (UTC) are you able to explain that last paragraph in plain English and not marketing gobbledegook? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:11, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Chartboost is a mobile programmatic advertising and monetization platform that connects app developers with marketers through advertising in app environments, and operates a mediation business for gaming publishers Hannahloopme (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC) if I have to follow 7 links to understand a 28 word sentence then that should basically tell you how this article was deficient. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:30, 30 June 2026 (UTC) One half out of seven, and the only reason that the first sentence might (dubiously) survive is because nobody thought to excise the gratuitous buzzword. —Cryptic 16:19, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Endorse and I'll note that the appeal sounds suspiciously like AI that has been told to minimize the chance of it being detected as AI. I realize this is a drown-the-witch sort of approach, but... We don't need this article, or any other article made on this company, which I believe fails NCORP in any event, nearly so much as they need a Wikipedia article to seem legitimate. Thank you, appellant, for disclosing your COI, but we just don't want your company's article here. Jclemens (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC) For the record, I refute the AI accusation. I was trying to explain my case clearly and in accordance with Wikipedia's rules/terminology. Hannahloopme (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Endorse and block Hannahloopme as they're clearly here only to promote LoopMe. Frank Anchor if you or any other non conflicted editor want to work on this, I'm happy to provide it for you as I'm sure you'd produce an acceptable draft if sourcing is available. Star Mississippi 18:07, 25 June 2026 (UTC) I personally have no interest in the topic but I believe there is some non-G11 material available if anyone would want to work on the draft available. Frank Anchor 19:47, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Endorse the speedy deletion from article space. The page is not so promotional that it should be speedily deleted from draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC) ECP salt in article space, to allow a neutral reviewer to accept a submission from draft space to article space if/after it has been rewritten by a volunteer editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC) Endorse, salt, ECP, and block the nominator. Then they might begin to get the message. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2026 (UTC) Keep deleted from mainspace and salt, retain in draftspace (where it is now). Wikipedia fundamentally does not want articles written by COI editors. Those editors tend to have an objective of "get X listed in Wikipedia", therefore edit with a bias, and community time is wasted policing for this bias. Such COI editors have a clear interest in pushing the boundaries of promotional content and tone. That is why COI editors have to disclose, and cannot write/place a COI article directly into mainspace. They need to draft it in Draft space, where the AfC process should decide whether to promote it to a mainspace article, with particular rigour to make sure the sourcing is good, the entity is notable, and the tone is nonpromotional. In this case, the current draft has indeed been written by a COI editor, and a quick look at the sourcing shows a tell-tale pattern of many sources, but not sufficiently in-depth and independent to support an article on this company. They're "Company had this (pretty routine) corporate/financial event", or "X from Company was interviewed and said ...". What will make the difference are sources that discuss, with an independent editorial voice, why this company is interesting and what makes it more notable than a run-of-the-mill company in the space. So at best more work is needed on the draft; at worst, there is just not enough independent in-depth coverage to warrant an article. Draftspace is the right place to figure it out, without trying to short circuit the process. Salting is appropriate, since there have been multiple attempts to do so. Technically, I'm not sure CSD G11 was appropriate (not unambiguous enough as advertising for my taste, per Martin above) but I also note the concerning history noted by Owen; an AFD discussion would not have been a good use of time. Martinp (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2026 (UTC) Just to note that it already went through the AfC process and it was accepted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:18, 26 June 2026 (UTC) and it was deleted then too prior to the deletion @Hannahloopme is contesting. I think the community consensus is fairly clear and if she remains unblocked and moves the extant draft it will probably be deleted again. That said, not opposed to an AFD if folks think that would be helpful for a final enough. Star Mississippi 13:29, 26 June 2026 (UTC) Endorse utterly unambiguous. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2026 (UTC) Just a note that the promotional content is blatantly a product of a LLM (probably ChatGPT) being asked to write an article about the company. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2026 (UTC) Where is the evidence this was LLM-generated? @Helpful Raccoon Katzrockso (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2026 (UTC) Numerous instances of WP:OVERATTRIBUTION and WP:AITREND/WP:SUPERFICIAL, such as "Industry publications including Cynopsis and Street Fight have reported on this trend in the context of LoopMe's position in the mobile app ecosystem". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2026 (UTC) I appreciate your point of view here but please note that I did not use any kind of LLM to write this. I was actually working with a spreadsheet of LoopMe related press coverage and weaving in citations that way. I was under the impression that I needed lots of attributions/citations in order to meet Wikipedia's standards. Hannahloopme (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2026 (UTC) Retain as draft, review at AfC: The draft is promotional. If @MSGJ says it was accepted at AfC, but was deleted per G11, then retaining in draftspace (or even userspace) is acceptable. The editor has declared they're being paid, and clearly appear to be engaging here, so a block would be punitive (and correct me if I'm wrong, but DRV isn't a conduct noticeboard). Improve the draft, send to AfC. 11WB (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

LoopMe – Complicated
G11 deletion endorsed (in the procedural sense)
There seems to be consensus to ECP-salt the mainspace title
There seems to be consensus to allow Draft:LoopMe to remain undeleted.
There are some calls to block the nominator, but not enough to form a consensus for that action; it can be pursued at standard forums for user conduct actions which DRV isn't.

* Pppery * _{in solidarity} 20:44, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I'm contesting the deletion of the LoopMe article under G11 (unambiguous advertising). I believe this deletion was in error and the article meets Wikipedia's notability standards.

LoopMe is a significant UK-based adtech company with extensive coverage in independent, tier-one trade publications. The article is sourced primarily in AdExchanger, TechCrunch, Broadcasting+Cable, MediaPost, Digiday, and ExchangeWire (all highly renowned publications!). LoopMe has also been used as a data source for articles in non-trade publications including the BBC, CNBC and Forbes.

A G11 deletion assumes the article's purpose is to promote the company. But the article describes what LoopMe does (i.e. its business model, history, products, and industry standing) in neutral, factual language. It doesn't use marketing claims; it reports on third-party coverage. Describing a company's achievements, awards, and products is encyclopedic, not promotional. Wikipedia has similar articles on Criteo, Databricks, and other adtech/martech companies.

The product descriptions are grounded in trade publication reporting, not company marketing copy.

I'm more than happy for neutral editors to review the article and toning down any language that reads as promotional.

The article was deleted without discussion an opportunity for improvement before removal. I'm requesting restoration so the article can be reviewed and improved by the community. Hannahloopme (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Even this request reads like a promotional piece. If the article is written even close to the same tone and manner as this then you are better off to walk away and let someone else create it from scratch, if the company is indeed notable. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 09:45, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying but I'm just trying to make my case! Hannahloopme (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Its written in promotional language and is a paid for article that was restored to mainspace 3 times on successive days by the nominator after 3 different admins deleted it as a g11 I suggest that we endorse and salt. Multiple creations in these circumstances is disruptive and I question whether we should allow the nominator to continue editing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Please can you define promotional language? I wholeheartedly believe that I have been neutral in tone and I've given tons and tons of citations - both industry-specific press and in the general press (e.g. BBC). Hannahloopme (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

its ref bombed and far from neutral. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Please do not ask the volunteer editors at DRV to assist you (a paid editor) in writing or rewriting your article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

To add - I complied with Wikipedia's policies in disclosing my affiliation to the subject too! Hannahloopme (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Thats honestly the bare minimum and you don't get credit in the bank for that Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:12, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Endorse and SALT per Spartaz. I appreciate the appellant declaring her paid editing status--eventually, after being prodded to do so by an admin. But in recreating the article in mainspace a day after it was deleted, she was not only violating WP:PAID/WP:COI, but also engaging in an edit war. The 8 June 2026 revision removed a lengthy product listing section, but was otherwise essentially identical to the one deleted the previous day, promotional tone and all. While I'm not yet ready to swing the ban hammer, if there's any attempt to circumvent the SALT with title-gaming, a p-block from mainspace is in order. Owen× ☎ 11:25, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Please can you try to appreciate that I've been trying my very best to stick to Wikipedia's rules. I added a paid disclosure note as soon as I found out that was required. I can infer the meaning of edit war but that wasn't my intention. I'm trying my best to understand and adhere to a complex system of rules. I'm also confused because so many similar companies have pages with far fewer citations: Quantcast, Criteo, OpenX etc - so I don't understand how those pages are live when LoopMe was taken down? Hannahloopme (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
I understand how daunting it can be for a new user on Wikipedia to learn our elaborate and often complex policies and guidelines. But let me boil things down to this: on 5 June, you were notified that the article was tagged for speedy deletion, along with a clear explanation of the reason for tagging, and links to relevant policy and steps to contest such a deletion. You did not engage with the editor placing the notice on your Talk page, nor follow the guidelines to contest it. The article was deleted on Sunday, 7 June, at 4pm UK time. The next morning, Monday at 08:46 UK time, you simply recreated the article, minus one section. This does not come across as the action of someone who is engaging with Wikipedia in good faith.
Arguments pointing to other companies with articles here are typically rejected; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for details. As for earned vs. paid, how long would it take us to find examples of LoopMe buying ad space in one of MediaPost's 20+ publications? I don't think you want to go down that path. In general, trade journals are considered non-independent sources in almost all cases. Owen× ☎ 15:10, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
I have restored to Draft:LoopMe so non-admins can comment. Personally I'm not seeing the "unambiguous advertising or promotion" but no comment on notability. I also note it was accepted via AfC in April, so this probably deserves discussion at AfD rather than speed deletion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
To take one of many examples, the paragraph starting with, LoopMe has contributed to broader industry discussion on AI through publications and podcasts doesn't strike you as corporate marketing brochure penmanship? The repeated reliance on paid trade rag MediaPost for many of the claims is itself a red flag. Owen× ☎ 11:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
MediaPost articles are earned not paid! Hannahloopme (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
What does that mean ? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Earned media, I suspect. Left guide (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
well that's a new concept to me. The problem with marketeers is an inability to communicate in a way that people who live outside their world can readily understand.

I'm kind of blown away that the distinction appears something necessary to say. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:39, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Yes exactly I was countering the claim that I was relying on articles in a 'paid trad rag'. Yes it's a trade publication. But we're talking about earned media rather than articles which you pay for. Hannahloopme (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Technically overturn G11 but keep in draftspace. The article is not exclusively promotional and would not need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as [an] encyclopedia [article], as required by the policy. That said, this article as written would stand zero chance at AFD. Keeping it in draftspace allows for improvement to encyclopedic standards (both for notability and POV) to eventually be restored as a better article, or to be abandoned and G13ed. No opinion on whether or not the mainspace title should be salted. Frank Anchor 12:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Endorse G11 If I had come across this in the AFC process I would have flagged it there for G11 as well. This is not an encyclopedic article written about a subject. It's a promotional fluff piece discussing how much affect they have had on the industry and boasting about the "coverage" they have recieved. It needs to be rewritten from the ground up by someone else. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:57, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Endorse. I can find all of four sentences that could survive unchanged in a neutrally-written article, two of them dubiously so. —Cryptic 13:36, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Really? I would be curious for a sentence-by-sentence breakdown. Here are six that are factual and neutral and I'm not even halfway down the article....

LoopMe is an advertising technology (AdTech) company headquartered in London, United Kingdom.

In January 2022, LoopMe received a $120 million investment from private equity firm Mayfair Equity Partners, valuing the company at approximately $200 million

LoopMe was founded in 2012 by Stephen Upstone and Marco van de Bergh, two executives who had previously worked together in mobile advertising at Ad Infuse (later acquired by Velti)

In 2022, former OMD (part of Omnicom) CEO Mainardo de Nardis was appointed as Chair of LoopMe's board of directors.

In December 2024, LoopMe acquired Chartboost from Zynga, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Take-Two Interactive (Nasdaq: TTWO), for an undisclosed sum. Zynga had originally acquired Chartboost in 2022 for $250 million

Chartboost is a mobile programmatic advertising and monetization platform that connects app developers with marketers through immersive in-app advertising experiences, and operates a mediation business for gaming publishers Hannahloopme (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Please do not ask the volunteer editors at DRV for assistance in writing or rewriting an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Noted! Hannahloopme (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

are you able to explain that last paragraph in plain English and not marketing gobbledegook? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:11, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Chartboost is a mobile programmatic advertising and monetization platform that connects app developers with marketers through advertising in app environments, and operates a mediation business for gaming publishers Hannahloopme (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
if I have to follow 7 links to understand a 28 word sentence then that should basically tell you how this article was deficient. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:30, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

One half out of seven, and the only reason that the first sentence might (dubiously) survive is because nobody thought to excise the gratuitous buzzword. —Cryptic 16:19, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Endorse and I'll note that the appeal sounds suspiciously like AI that has been told to minimize the chance of it being detected as AI. I realize this is a drown-the-witch sort of approach, but... We don't need this article, or any other article made on this company, which I believe fails NCORP in any event, nearly so much as they need a Wikipedia article to seem legitimate. Thank you, appellant, for disclosing your COI, but we just don't want your company's article here. Jclemens (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
For the record, I refute the AI accusation. I was trying to explain my case clearly and in accordance with Wikipedia's rules/terminology. Hannahloopme (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Endorse and block Hannahloopme as they're clearly here only to promote LoopMe. Frank Anchor if you or any other non conflicted editor want to work on this, I'm happy to provide it for you as I'm sure you'd produce an acceptable draft if sourcing is available. Star Mississippi 18:07, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I personally have no interest in the topic but I believe there is some non-G11 material available if anyone would want to work on the draft available. Frank Anchor 19:47, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Endorse the speedy deletion from article space. The page is not so promotional that it should be speedily deleted from draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
ECP salt in article space, to allow a neutral reviewer to accept a submission from draft space to article space if/after it has been rewritten by a volunteer editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Endorse, salt, ECP, and block the nominator. Then they might begin to get the message. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep deleted from mainspace and salt, retain in draftspace (where it is now). Wikipedia fundamentally does not want articles written by COI editors. Those editors tend to have an objective of "get X listed in Wikipedia", therefore edit with a bias, and community time is wasted policing for this bias. Such COI editors have a clear interest in pushing the boundaries of promotional content and tone. That is why COI editors have to disclose, and cannot write/place a COI article directly into mainspace. They need to draft it in Draft space, where the AfC process should decide whether to promote it to a mainspace article, with particular rigour to make sure the sourcing is good, the entity is notable, and the tone is nonpromotional. In this case, the current draft has indeed been written by a COI editor, and a quick look at the sourcing shows a tell-tale pattern of many sources, but not sufficiently in-depth and independent to support an article on this company. They're "Company had this (pretty routine) corporate/financial event", or "X from Company was interviewed and said ...". What will make the difference are sources that discuss, with an independent editorial voice, why this company is interesting and what makes it more notable than a run-of-the-mill company in the space. So at best more work is needed on the draft; at worst, there is just not enough independent in-depth coverage to warrant an article. Draftspace is the right place to figure it out, without trying to short circuit the process. Salting is appropriate, since there have been multiple attempts to do so. Technically, I'm not sure CSD G11 was appropriate (not unambiguous enough as advertising for my taste, per Martin above) but I also note the concerning history noted by Owen; an AFD discussion would not have been a good use of time. Martinp (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to note that it already went through the AfC process and it was accepted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:18, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

and it was deleted then too prior to the deletion @Hannahloopme is contesting. I think the community consensus is fairly clear and if she remains unblocked and moves the extant draft it will probably be deleted again. That said, not opposed to an AFD if folks think that would be helpful for a final enough. Star Mississippi 13:29, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Endorse utterly unambiguous. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Just a note that the promotional content is blatantly a product of a LLM (probably ChatGPT) being asked to write an article about the company. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Where is the evidence this was LLM-generated? @Helpful Raccoon Katzrockso (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Numerous instances of WP:OVERATTRIBUTION and WP:AITREND/WP:SUPERFICIAL, such as "Industry publications including Cynopsis and Street Fight have reported on this trend in the context of LoopMe's position in the mobile app ecosystem". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
I appreciate your point of view here but please note that I did not use any kind of LLM to write this. I was actually working with a spreadsheet of LoopMe related press coverage and weaving in citations that way. I was under the impression that I needed lots of attributions/citations in order to meet Wikipedia's standards. Hannahloopme (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Retain as draft, review at AfC: The draft is promotional. If @MSGJ says it was accepted at AfC, but was deleted per G11, then retaining in draftspace (or even userspace) is acceptable. The editor has declared they're being paid, and clearly appear to be engaging here, so a block would be punitive (and correct me if I'm wrong, but DRV isn't a conduct noticeboard). Improve the draft, send to AfC. 11WB (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 June 25

25 June 2026

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks