Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Kwik

: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. Secret account 03:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

=[[Jim Kwik]]=

:{{la|Jim Kwik}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jim_Kwik Stats])

:({{Find sources|Jim Kwik}})

Marketing-style text, no independent sources that could be used to estimate notability Tournesol (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete, only source is own website, purpose appears solely advertising. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I see what you mean, it wasn't my purpose but I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heron89 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete. There are insufficient independent reliable sources to indicate notability. Peacock (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. No independent sources to support notability. And there appears to be little or no encyclopedic content here, just a promotion of the subject's web sites. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. JacobyEasox (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete per above -- claim to notability is weak enough that PROD should have been tried first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mscuthbert (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per above. Elmo420v (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

:: We seem to have a WP:SNOW agreement here. If anyone would like to do the honours... Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2013 (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.