Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cantaloupe Aqua

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) 05:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cantaloupe Aqua[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBUSINESS. Little assertion of notability in the article itself (once all the self-promotional material is removed) - relies on either WP:PRIMARY or WP:NOTRELIABLE or WP:SELFPUBLISH sources. Dan arndt (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as corporate spam under G11: unambiguous advertising. No indications of notability and sufficient RS coverage to meet GNG cannot be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Page reads like an advertisement and the hotel lacks notability. Meatsgains (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - puffed up, but no claim or evidence of notability - David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also consider this speedy material, none of it is coming close to substance and simply boils to PR. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 31 August 2016 (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.