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 redirect to Nick Knight (photographer). Kurykh ( talk) 01:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Showstudio.com

Showstudio.com (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Advertising article, which has had continual spammy updates since 2007. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORG. scope_creep ( talk) 16:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Without debating the merits of the article, have you considered alternatives to deletion, such as redirecting or merging, before listing the article for deletion and if so, why did you not use them? Regards So Why 16:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 10. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect or merge Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORG. Any worthwhile content can be added to the page of its founder/owner, Nick Knight (photographer), leaving a redirect to the same article. Edwardx ( talk) 00:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment @No User:SoWhy I haven't. For years, since 2007, it's been the target of substantial additions of advert muck, which has been stripped out on an ongoing basis. Recently, almost the whole article had to be junked to get back to encyclopedic content. If a redirect is applied, it will need protection. scope_creep ( talk) 09:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment It was my observation, too, that the article was born of promotional intent and has stubbornly maintained that purpose for ten years, and that was my rationale for nominating this for speedy deletion. That said, if adequate sources aren't found to support notability, I'm neutral as to the choice between deletion and redirection. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 17:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Nick Knight (photographer); not independently notable. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Nick Knight (photographer); the studio itself doesn't need a separate article. - Brianhe ( talk) 21:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment It is my belief within weeks, or possibly months, that the link filled with another article full of puffer. I can't see why a redirect is necessary. All it does it reaffirm that he has the site, which is not notable in the first event. Catch 22. scope_creep ( talk) 01:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete As I agree with Scope creep; there is nothing notable in the article, and the fact that he has a website is mentioned in his own page- so no need to redirect. However, Redirect as a second !v if it's required  ;) O Fortuna! ^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 10:35, 16 February 2017 (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.