Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whatareyoubuyen
Appearance
- 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. Mkdwtalk 19:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Whatareyoubuyen (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)
no documented claim to notability. The refs are none of them RSs. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Not seeing significant secondary source coverage at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment FYI the company is WP:CANVASSING on Twitter: tweet. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP per searches. It's interesting that if they are canvassing through tweets, that might actually exacerbate their non-notability, since not a single person has joined this discussion. Onel5969 TT me 15:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- 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.