Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gala Tent


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Gala Tent

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a promotional article about a non-notable company. If I search for this company it does get a few low level Google News hits. A bit of local news coverage, passing mentions, that sort of thing. More or less same article was speedily deleted as spam in the past but this new version is rather more subtle and avoids the same fate. I still think it has all the same problems though, just rather less obviously on show. Look at those references. A decent number but many go the the company's own website and some others go to search pages on non-RS sites and some have no valid hits at the other end. That is before asking how well they actually support the claims made in the text. Those awards. Impressive huh? Except that it is not clear who actually awarded them or even if all of them are real. ("Chamber of Commerce" is not a specific organisation, it is just a type of organisation). So, basically, I think this has verifiability problems as well as notability problems. Then there is the article text itself. All that innovation. So much innovation. And not just any innovation; Gazebo innovation! (Undeniably a great name for an indie band but not so good as a section heading in an encyclopaedia.) While it seems that a fair bit of effort has been put into making this look like a valid article at a first glance, I fear that closer inspection will show that underneath its gleaming white marquee lurks a wonky trestle table overloaded with plates of a certain questionable tinned meat product. DanielRigal (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as unlikely notable with nothing currently convincing and the best my searches finding only this. SwisterTwister   talk  06:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Per DanielRigal Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:39, 20 January 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.