Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vuly Trampolines

Vuly Trampolines

(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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]
Keep - per FoolMeOnce2Times. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
My problem with that approach is that it leaves a stub which may never be developed or else will be reverted back to the advertising article we see today as the only editors interested may be the ones with a COI. The company is basically unknown outside Australia but I have no notion about its notability in that country. Dabbler (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it may never materialize, but that is not a reason to delete it. If that were the case, there would be no such thing as a stub template. Also, keeping it on a watch list so that spam does not get added back in is an option. I just hate to see articles deleted because they are too short, spammy, or anything other than un notable, assuming that it is notable. By stating you would create a new article seems to me that you believe somehow that it is notable, otherwise, we would just go right with delete and skip the recreation. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]