Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vuly Trampolines

Vuly Trampolines

Vuly Trampolines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not notable enough for Wikipedia. Many of the listed sources are either primary or parochial, the article has a blatantly promotional tone, and the accounts that have significantly contributed to it are pretty much only here for that purpose. Graham87 00:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - Promotional? Absolutely! COI? More than likely based on the SPAs involved! We can also add WP:NPOV based on the potential COI writing in a promotional tone. However, I do feel that there are enough WP:RS to establish WP:GNG. [1], [2], and [3] to start with. I would say the best thing to do is strip this down to the basic facts as stated in the references. Everything else belongs in their brochure in Toys R Us. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - per FoolMeOnce2Times. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - I have been thinking about this and I think that it would be better to have a completely new non-advertising article rather than attempting to salvage this one. Dabbler (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Or, it would be easier to keep this article and remove everything other than a paragraph that states who they are and what they do. Stub it out. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)