Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LesPAC

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LesPAC

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP, all coverage appears to be PR and routine business news. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nom is correct; the article's sources do not meet WP:NCORP on account of them being either trivial in nature, standard business announcements, or press releases (the French communique). In addition, none of the sources I read attested to the notability or significance of the subject—I doubt being "Quebec’s first-ever classified ad website" qualifies as being a credible claim to significance. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources outside of newswire and likewise. John M Wolfson (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ditto to above, additionally fails WP:GNG, not known to a wide audience DrewieStewie (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly does not meet notability criteria. Some secondary sources from Quebec-based newspapers, such as the Journal de Montréal, Journal de Québec, and the Montreal Gazette, but all seem to be ads at the same time... Spyder212 (talk) 18:53, 20 April 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.