Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art-Switch

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) 22:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Art-Switch[edit]

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

I PROD'd this in January but it was de-PROD'd with a suggestion to take to AfD.

The sources in article are mostly business announcements of the "Hey here's what we're going to do" type and fail WP:CORPDEPTH. I cannot locate any additional sources to indicate this passes WP:NCORP. The company has now dissolved, producing no fanfare or sources as it did so. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the article exists solely to promote the business, and even includes the pricing model. Wikipedia is not a free means of promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable subject, finding additional sources would prove problematic. Second the point by K.e.coffman, such a small company should not have it's pricing model on it's article, it is advertising. SamHolt6 (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The best source is the Art Shortcuts item from The Guardian in 2008, but I read that as propositional, merely reporting a new venture pitch. In the absence of in-depth critical coverage of the company and its lifespan, I do not see this as meeting either WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:47, 14 July 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.