Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sparesbox

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sparesbox[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOT. Advertising article for company started in 2014. scope_creep (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of many such organisations with no particular outstanding differences but that is not grounds for deletion. Has multiple independent reliable sources for content. Style is not especially (non/)promotional but that could be fixed anyway. And it secured naming rights within a significant race event. That in itself is potentially notable. Aoziwe (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "One of many such organisations with no particular outstanding differences..." means that this subject is "non notable". That aside, this article should be deleted per WP:TOOSOON & WP:PROMO; just an unremarkable private company going about its business. Awards are trivial, while the content is advertorial in nature. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ if I may. Notability depends on multiple reliable secondary references, not the nature or status of the article subject. Aoziwe (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The listed sources are not independent and are either company announcements or promo. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG.

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.