Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Branded environments


 * 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   no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Branded environments

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Article has not been cleaned-up or had any significant strides towards cleanup since 2007. From what I can see, this article is an ad, but has failed a prod.keystoneridin! (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep That isn't a reason to delete. Gbooks seach clearly shows that the subject is notable and a well sourced article can be written, the article as it is today is a valid stub. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 04:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree that it's a poor AFD rationale, but not knowing what "Branded environments" are and not really learning much from the article says to me that cleanup/wikification and context improvement by someone who knows what they're writing about needs to be done sooner rather than later. It's kind of hard to vote keep or delete when it's hard to tell if the subject is notable. Nosleep break my slumber 09:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are scores of Google Scholar hits for "Branded environments" and for "Branded environment". If article is kept it should be moved to Branded environment. Abductive  (reasoning) 10:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I would very rarely say to delete an article because of low quality, but this is almost useless. i think I can guess what is intended, but it really should be done over. DGG (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: And I would recommend that those who are suggesting to delete it instead put effort into making it better Billbowery (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - the article is in dire need of a tidy up, but I don't think it meets the requirements to be deleted. I know nothing about this area, so I would be unable to tidy it - but it definitely needs work, so that it makes sense to an everyday Joe like myself! --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 19:02, 14 August 2009 (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.