Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motion RC

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. Kurykh (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Motion RC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Another cookie cutter hobby store who do not assert notability like every other WP:COI article about businesses. Donnie Park (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. I've removed most of the article's contents as it was unencyclopedic and its only purpose was to serve as free marketing for the company. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article contains no claim to notability, merely describing a company's business, nor are my searches finding anything better than routine listings and customer reviews. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2017 (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.