Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icing Works


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Icing Works

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Apparently-defunct cupcake business with no notable media coverage. Official web site inactive; no social media presence. Two of the References are to Icing Works' own site. The third is a promotional interview with a local interest magazine. Earlier versions of article were blatant promotion, and what's left with that removed has no apparent notability. SimLibrarian (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 07:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: An article on a company active from 2009-14, sourced to its own former site and to an interview piece on a local website, which are insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. No claim to notability in the article text and searches find nothing to indicate that notability was attained. AllyD (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. How did this survive for so long? The refs are insufficient even in the days before NORG was reworked. SpinningSpark 17:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not meeting guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2022 (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.