Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dyanna


 * 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. North America1000 18:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Dyanna

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promo article for non-notable spa by an indef-blocked editor. Sources 2-6 are either self-published or published via PR-agencies and press releases. Source 1 seems to be OK, but is only a very short review - doesn't establish any significant notability. Google hits show massive PR activity, but no apparent independent coverage. GermanJoe (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - No advertisements.--Rpclod (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a SOAPBOX.  CookieMonster755   (talk)   19:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete -As per WP:PROMO Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  09:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. Delete. But not because the editor was blocked: That is irrelevant. No reliable sources. Not notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable business. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom (though blocked editor does not factor in here). The topic does not meet WP:GNG--unable to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Shanata (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2015 (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.