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. Vanamonde (
Talk) 23:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete as some of their claims on this page and here
[1] are notable, but I can find no good secondary coverage. (
Dushan Jugum (
talk) 00:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).reply
Ping the reviewer also KeepDelete After reading and rereading the article I have decided that this may not have been my best decision but I do go by what I said when I reviewed it that news articles would be sufficient coverage. [
UsernameNeeded 12:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Is there a reason why you said to ping the reviewer, as the reviewer yourself? Can you provide that significant coverage,
Username Needed? Because the sources in the article don't establish that:
I thought I saw two news sources in there, but I may have been mistaken. [
UsernameNeeded 10:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
After reading the sources in question more thoroughly (something I should have done already) I have re-decided that there is only one shaky at best suitable source, and have changed my vote accordingly. [
UsernameNeeded 11:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete The subject is no more noteworthy than any other business on the highstreet. Its sources are either cursory mentions or self-referential with several from its own website.
Pupsbunch (
talk) 20:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Mostly PR pieces nothing substantial and reliable enough to have a page.
PlotHelpful (
talk) 22:57, 29 January 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.