GripeO: Don't believe this passes GNG, either.  The page was originally put up as a promotional piece, and the linked website does not seem to be the same as the company described in the articles.  Comintell ( talk ) 03:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , article seems to list sources that look trustworthy on the surface, but which actually seem like they're regurgitating GripeO's marketing materials.  AriTheHorse 04:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : A company based in India, with sources all from the Buffalo, New York area?  I don't think this is the same thing...  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: The statement that the company was based in India was a simple vandalism edit, made in April of this year, which I have now reverted.  It had remained there for 8 months, during which there have been 48 edits, yet none of the editors editing in that time seems to have noticed that everything refers to a totally different place, spent one minute checking the editing history, and found the vandalism.  JBW ( talk ) 23:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - There's been a tremendous amount of socks and manipulation involved in this article, which included links to fake articles and PR.  Farther back in the history, I can see an account alleging to be the original owner claiming the startup went defunct and the domain was taken over by a less-than-desirable entity.  Looking at archive.org, it does appear the domain expired in 2017 and was picked up by a crypto/forex blog in 2020.  IP and metatag history sites show a similar story.  Their current TOS notes Wyoming laws apply, which is a red flag: Wyoming/Sheridan is infamous for the registration of cheap and anonymous shell companies.  I did not find anything related to "Gripeo" in the Wyoming registry, though.  All that said, I think the nomination has the feel for it.  This is not the original site, and the original was not terribly notable to begin with.  Sam Kuru (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Vandalism, non-notable original site and non-notable site now using the domain.  Nothing in this screams keep.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as hoax and vandalism and lack of passing WP:CORPDEPTH बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 00:54, 26 December 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete