Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WED2B

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. czar 06:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WED2B (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)

The article fails WP:NORG there is only 1 in depth source the second is about one of the investors and mentions the article's subject in passing. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. A search on the web could only turn up social media and associated sources. Domdeparis (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I created the page for WED2B after I saw a news article regarding the primary investor and updating his page. From there, I thought it would make sense to create an entity for the company. It's my first ever page and I have added more sources now. There seems to be a steady stream of local news appearing around the country. Could I perhaps add more of these? BritishGuy (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment hi the sources may just be what is needed but I am not 100% sure that it is enough so for the moment I would prefer other editors to give their opinion rather than withdrawing the nomination. I would say that the article in bridal buyer is a bit more negative than the criticism section but that can be easily cleaned up. If the decision is keep the article will have to be moved to be in line with WP:TMRULES. Domdeparis (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; just a minor chain. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails Wp:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH in that the company has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I could only find passing mention of the company in business listings and social media. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 16 June 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.