Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essential Brands Group Australasia


 * 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. SmartSE (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Essential Brands Group Australasia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company. None of the refs constitutes in depth coverage in an independent source. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment One of the sources, the Gold Coast Bulletin, but just this one, appears to meet the criteria 'independent' and 'in-depth'. That may well not be enough to establish notability, but I suggest this one article would qualify as in-depth.  Schwede 66  21:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep ArabianBusiness, The Lifestyle Avenue, GoldCoastBulletin are independent sources. I inserted self published sources for services, locations and other facts only. Company has more than 450 outlets, it is in a retail group with Gloria Jeans and Donut King, such masses interact with this business, it is notable. --Sanul22 (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Above vote was made by article's creator.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note Sanul22 has been blocked per Sockpuppet_investigations/Highstakes00. One of the other accounts disclosed they were a paid editor, so I presume the same applies to Sanul although there is no disclosure. SmartSE (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:GNG and WP:CORP. There is essentially coverage on this company from only one source that is reliable and secondary, which is this one. I also saw this source, but it's essentially (what looks to be) a copy of the first source I provided - so pretty much one original source covers the company in-depth. Both WP:GNG and WP:CORP discuss that significant coverage must exist with reliable sources to assert notability, and it must be to the point where an article can be created without the use of original research. I don't believe that significant coverage exists, and hence this article fails WP:GNG.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as nothing to indicate notability coming up on line. Basically self promotional stuff. NealeFamily (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * delete the references are not in-depth and article is potential advert. LibStar (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * delete the grandiose claims in the article are pretty hard to confirm from sources external to the company. --Scott Davis Talk 02:09, 15 December 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.