Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BOTTLE PR

: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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

=[[BOTTLE PR]]=

:{{la|BOTTLE PR}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|BOTTLE PR}})

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 20:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and seems like SPAM. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable and failing WP:COMPANY, spam notwithstanding. --Ifnord (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. There are quite a few hits in Google news archives, though most of them (unsurprisingly) look like press releases. However, they also got some decent coverage (starting on page 23) in a book called Start up and Run your Own Business.[http://books.google.com/books?id=V057a2zkGBEC&pg=PA23&dq=%22bottle+pr%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mewYT66PLcSBsgKv4uipCw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22bottle%20pr%22&f=false] Looks like there is some evidence of notability, so I am leaning to keeping the article.--Kubigula (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Examining that book page, the company was merely used as an example in a how-to-do-it book--I somehow suspect the placing it there was probably an act of publicity itself. The ranking of the company as 114th in the top 150 in the UK is, to my mind, a reasonable indication of lack of notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete: I'm not finding multiple, independent, reliable sources discussing the subject in significant detail. "Looks like there is some evidence of notability" does not satisfy the requirements of WP:V or the GNG; such sources must be proven and produced, or an article cannot be sustained. Ravenswing 09:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

: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.