Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noddy Kidswear

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 speedy delete (non-admin closure). —Paleo Neonate - 04:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noddy Kidswear[edit]

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

No sign of actual notability. One reference is a business listing site, the others are all just e-commerce sites where you can purchase the products. Strongly promotional, no sign of notability. JamesG5 (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article promoting the company's proposition, with poor references: blogs, a Slideshare pack and shopping sites, none of which are reliable sources. Searches, including the tailored Indian media search, are not finding better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Didn't find any credible news from my initial Google search. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP. --Elton-Rodrigues 19:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton-Rodrigues (talk • contribs)
Keep:This article has relevant information about Noddy Kidswear and there is no duplication or false information on it. I believe that article without reference source should not be the sole reason for deletion. Please feel free to comment or contribute your thoughts towards Noddy Kidswear.

Note: I have made some improvement on this article and added appropriate reference source. Pshibe (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have read this article and checked the websites. I found it appropriate and would suggest that this article should not be deleted. No strong reason for deletion.

Bhavz90 (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Bhavz90 (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:I have reviewed the information. Although they don't have any strong references in Google search, but the information added in this article is correct as per the website. The article looks good & should not be deleted just because it doesn't have any strong references.

Swati 12 (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)(talk) 14:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article seems to be OK. Reference source shows notability. Overall the article is grammatically correct. I would like to suggest that this article should not be deleted.

Riya08511 (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have found the information and reference source given in this article appropriate. I would suggest not to delete this article.Nawal25X12 (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's in no way suspicious that all the "keep" activity is from brand new single purpose accounts with no other edits (except for one of them weighing in on another corp spam AfD) and that all the "keeps" have been pasted to the article's talk page. I heard a loud quacking sound. JamesG5 (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: The following accounts are socks of Pshibe: Bhavz90, Swati 12, Riya08511, and Nawal25X12. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pshibe.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G11. We don't need advertising on Wikipedia.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing does not indicate that the subject meets WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 9 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.