Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PureJewels

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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PureJewels[edit]

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

Article appears to be promotional. References are either ad copy/ press releases or are trivial mentions of the location only. (Two of them are also redundant.). Article needs evidence of non-trivial discussion in reliable, independent, secondary sources to be retained. KDS4444 (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable.--Markbrown00 (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I removed the LiveMint link, as it was redundant to the Reuters article. I'm not sure that it'd really be an in-depth source as a whole since the article isn't really about the store itself. It's mentioned more in passing. The FT article could be considered usable for the most part. It's not the focus of the article but it's mentioned more than in the Reuters article. The official website is of course primary and I need to note that this article was written by someone who works for PureJewels, so it'd be primary as well. This article only mentioned the company briefly, so another trivial source. Unless there's better coverage out there, this looks to be a solid delete. It could potentially be speedyable as spam, given the promotional puff in the article, but running an AfD would help keep it from getting restored in the future without establishing notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched (it didn't take long) and there just isn't a lot out there that isn't a routine database listing or a primary source. The best I found was this news article, but it's far from enough to keep the article and besides - the website offers marketing packages that includes promotional articles. The content in the DesiBlitz article is so promotional that it seems like this was written as a marketing piece. There just isn't really enough out there to warrant an article at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to find sufficient substantive coverage in independent sources. It is also rather promotional in its tone. Vanamonde (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 12:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 12:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- purely promotional content and no indication of significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:41, 18 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.