Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChristmasLightsEtc.com: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→ChristmasLightsEtc.com: delete |
|||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
*'''Delete''' Sources are weak, focusing on the Christmas light market and mentioning the company in passing or as a source for quotes rather than specifically dealing with the company. Other references are not substantial in nature or are press releases. The article is borderline promotional. '''<font face="Arial">[[User:Acroterion|<font color="black">Acroterion</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<font color="gray">(talk)</font>]]</small></font>''' 20:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' Sources are weak, focusing on the Christmas light market and mentioning the company in passing or as a source for quotes rather than specifically dealing with the company. Other references are not substantial in nature or are press releases. The article is borderline promotional. '''<font face="Arial">[[User:Acroterion|<font color="black">Acroterion</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<font color="gray">(talk)</font>]]</small></font>''' 20:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
*I had another look and checked more refs. My opinion has firmed up from probably delete to definitely delete - advert. [[User:Szzuk|Szzuk]] ([[User talk:Szzuk|talk]]) 21:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC) |
*I had another look and checked more refs. My opinion has firmed up from probably delete to definitely delete - advert. [[User:Szzuk|Szzuk]] ([[User talk:Szzuk|talk]]) 21:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' - per SwisterTwister et al. --[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 21:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 21:40, 9 August 2011
- ChristmasLightsEtc.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. The sources that appear are weak. Should be deleted. IvoShandor (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Strong delete per lack of notable mentions, media coverage in general. No notable sources were found on both Google and Yahoo! search, I believe this article may have been created solely for advertising purposes as well. SwisterTwister talk 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. I checked 4 of the refs and they were trivial, from the looks of the others they will be the same, but I couldn't gurantee that without reading them. Szzuk (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Relisting comment. Per this message on my talk page, I have reopened this discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I have added links that show live news coverage from Fox News and CNN regarding the company sales and products, as well as verifiable media coverage from additional national outlets. After the page was flagged for deletion I studied numerous similar pages, including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balsam_Hill. I could continue to add media coverage from other sources, but after providing coverage from CNN, CBS, Fox News, Associated Press, Smart Money, and NY Times, I thought enough had been added. Should I just continue to list news sources? I followed all of the posted guidelines, so please let me know what else can be done. JeanetteDi (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Sources are weak, focusing on the Christmas light market and mentioning the company in passing or as a source for quotes rather than specifically dealing with the company. Other references are not substantial in nature or are press releases. The article is borderline promotional. Acroterion (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- I had another look and checked more refs. My opinion has firmed up from probably delete to definitely delete - advert. Szzuk (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - per SwisterTwister et al. --Noleander (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)