Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/77 Diamonds


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

77 Diamonds

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity. covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. Popular media used only for Press or news for company. Nothing significant coverage by these media. Once in a lifetime coverage. Nothing notable to be here. Merely for misleading. Thousands of online stores are there. Wikipedia is not store directory. Light2021 (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete.  advertisement. no need to check notability for something like this, which is irredeemable, as promotionalism by itself is a good reason for deletion Each diamond comes with a certificate of authenticity, which the company’s founders, Kormind and Weinig, say is key when it comes to customer confidence. They also believe diamonds will rise above the inflation index." along with an absurd account to trace the company's inspiration from 1477.  DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as the sources themselves are PR and the information itself, also in that it only focuses with what the company about itself and that then emphasizes the PR campaign here. SwisterTwister   talk  01:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Very little WP:CORPDEPTH; most of the articles are related to a publicity stunt the company was involved with. I amended this from a "delete" to a "weak delete' based on this Reuters video, though even the video kind of feels like a press release more than anything else.OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as corporate spam. The project should not be allowing WP:BOGOF articles, written by paid contributors. This wastes volunteer editors' time and results in articles on non notable subjects in the bargain. This only encourages spammers. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2016 (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.