Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CandyLand (candy)


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 23:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

CandyLand (candy)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no activity on page in over a year, and absolutely no information of substance
 * Comment - I completed the nom for IP 73.44.200.126. Ansh666 20:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 6.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 21:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete unreferenced, advertising of non notable company, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I already declined the speedy delete nomination for this. The advertising has been removed, and it is not a company so A7 does not apply.  There was more information on the page earlier so that negates half of the nomination reason, and I see no effort at all by the nbominator to find sources. Lack of edits does not mean that the page should be deleted. Since this is Pakistan, we need someone that can read and write the languages spoken there. So at this point I see no reason to delete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have found quite a few English language references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment A good try of a fix by Graeme, but I am not sure whether it is enough to warrant a solid keep. Source 1 comes from a Freeonlineresearchpaper.com which states to be "created by students who wish to publish their research papers to the web", implying self published + possibly not yet peer reviewed. Source 4 is not about the brand specifically. And I don't know whether we can use Source 3, looking like some internal analysis material.  野狼院 ひさし  Hisashi Yarouin 05:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - There's nothing here to establish notability, and nothing that says WP:NPRODUCT doesn't apply. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not seeing any there there. The first source doesn't discuss the subject in "significant detail" as the GNG requires.  Neither does the second source.  The third is blatantly a promotional stock tender.  The fourth mentions the name of the subject only, and doesn't discuss it at ALL.  If the fifth mentions it, we can't read it, and even if that did, it'd constitute just a single source.  This isn't a "good try" at a fix -- it's throwing up a bunch of non-qualifying chaff in the hopes that we'd just think "Ooo, sources!" and investigate no further. Nha Trang 21:47, 3 October 2014 (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.