Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audio Network


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Audio Network

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly sourced article about a company, which has a definite advertorial slant to it and was created by one of its own founders (thus violating WP:COI). The sourcing here is entirely to primary sources and simple namechecks in business directories, with no reliable source coverage in which the company is a subject. As always, Wikipedia is not a free advertising directory — a company does not become entitled to have an article on here just because its own self-published web presence verifies that it exists, but must be the subject of media coverage to earn one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment While I could easily suggest a delete for reasonings of WP:CORPSPAM, I've have found a couple of reliable articles including this article that show a bit of promise. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎 06:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 18:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete at best as the article could be drafted and userfied if improvable but the current article is still questionable. SwisterTwister   talk  05:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete; only ref I could find is this one, and it reads like a PR statement. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  19:14, 16 February 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.