Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garçon Model


 * 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Garçon Model

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article does not cite any references. Supdiop (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about the possible deletion, I had initially hit Save by mistake thinking that it would save the draft - not publish the document. I have since added the references (20 citations) to the points in the article, and it should be in compliance with Wiki rules and regulations. If it's still missing something, I'll be happy to add or edit so that it fits the Wiki standards.

Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwmmd (talk • contribs) 23:23, 15 April 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure whether the sources which were added to the article are reliable. I want an experienced user to take a look at article to verify the reliability of sources. At the time I added the deletion tag, there were no references. If the sources are not reliable then the article can be deleted. Thank you Supdiop (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete - The company has actually received some attention but I don't think it's enough especially considering the company was founded recently in 2012. A Google News search found some links and an archive search from the past four years found more but nothing notable. SwisterTwister   talk  04:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon  01:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 23.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 06:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources added since the deletion tag appear to be reliable and independent, thus establishing notability. TYelliot  &#124;  Talk  &#124;  Contribs  11:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep : Notable per coverage. --Girlishkim (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: I have blocked this user as an obvious undisclosed paid editor. SmartSE (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per Google News search found many sources and the sources already added seems enough for notability. Show-reality (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This user's contribs are also suspicuous and I'm about to initiate an SPI. SmartSE (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Confirmed and blocked: Sockpuppet investigations/Mr.sahota SmartSE (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 04:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   15:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Sock puppet editing and sock puppet AfD editing and per SwisterTwister's comment.  CookieMonster755   (talk)   04:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - ads and press releases do not qualify as reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:CORP and the key word beeing substantial coverage. Many crapy mentions don't add up to confer notability to a company. SmartSE (talk) 12:15, 2 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.