Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anevay

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anevay[edit]

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

There are not enough sources to prove notability. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The only non associated source (treehugger) that mentions the company reads like a brochure. This is clearly a promotional article and does not have its place on wikipedia yet. Domdeparis (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional and lacking reliable sourcing. I came this close to nominating it for speedy deletion. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies I'm not sure of the requirements for speedy-deletion. I might vote for that. What requirement did it not meet?

David Tornheim, it's not really a matter of requirements, and it wouldn't be a vote. See WP:G11. I didn't choose that because we're already here, and because it's not the worst of them. Does that make sense? You can nominate it yourself, if you will, but an admin might well say "let the AfD ride". Drmies (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also as promotional and lacking ANY independent reliable sourcing. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The company does not inherit notability from crowdfunding marketing for a product. (Nor do I think that product is itself notable at this time.) The article indicates that Camping Solutions Ltd was a former name and though some coverage can be seen involving that name, it appears to be single-event tangential coverage which does not demonstrate encyclopaedic notability for the firm. AllyD (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drmies; if anyone had declining this as WP:G11 on their conscience, I would feel for them. Completely WP:PROMO and WP:YELLOW. A WP:BEFORE gives the grand total of two pieces of 'coverage'- Treehugger, anyone?! :) Nuke from orbit. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:12, 29 April 2017 (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.