Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LD Products

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. Sandstein 08:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LD Products[edit]

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

Here's another non notable company with a promotional article by the same paid editor. An article where one of the 5 paragraphs is devoted to its headquarters meeting an high environmental standard obviously has nothing worth saying. Claiming to be "one of the largest" of anything without any actual evidence, let alone evidence from a third party source, is mere puffery. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NCORP. If we can establish a consensus through AfD that non-notable and promotional articles will be speedily deleted it can only help the project. per WP:IAR Jbh ^Talk 15:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and preferably speedily. Purely promotional and obviously a case of someone 'mistakenly' believing that Wikipedia is another LinkedIn, not understanding the difference between an Encyclopedia and a comercial networking site or the Yellow Pages.. Whether it is part of the Orangemoody paid spamming campaign or not, DGG has said all that needs to be said already. Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be used for profit in this way at the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that dedicated users spend building this encyclopedia which in spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended to be an additional business networking platform. Whether the text itself sounds promotional or not, the article is an advert and a plethora of sources has never been an automatic assumption of notability.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article by a paid advocate. WP:COI and WP:OR apply. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although it may be the largest of its field, I found no better coverage with the best results here and here (basically mostly PR). SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. Searches didn't turn up enough to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:30, 19 September 2015 (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.