Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shop Network

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 of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 12:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Shop Network[edit]

Couldn't find anything on Google; therefore fails WP:V. Daniel Case 05:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete amounts to advertising.--B.U. Football For Life|Talk 05:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I feel like I know about this, but the above voters make good points. Royboy crashfan 05:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A shopping channel with zero Ghits? QVC and HSN get millions. Difficult to believe this one even exists. Fan1967 06:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: advert. I'd send it to the deepest pit just for using the phrase 'vertically integrated.' --die Baumfabrik 07:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe they should sell some google hits instead. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable and ad. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleté (looks just like delete but ata fraction of the price!) Just zis Guy you know? 15:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the editor meant Shop at Home Network? Delete and do not redirect (unlikely search term). Thatcher131 21:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the description doesn't match. This article (the one sentence there is) seems to be specifically a jewelry seller. Fan1967 01:41, 9 March 2006 (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.