Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koby Inc


 * 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Koby Inc

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Spam article changed to a redirect then reverted from redirect multiple times by COI editor (see tag). No evidence in reliable sources this is a notable company or notable person fails WP:N and WP:CORP. The Wikipedia article claims the company name and person's name are interchageable but no sources presented support this claim WP:OR. The references should be removed as spam, but then there would be no references. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 04:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 04:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable photographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 04:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 04:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete a promotional junkpile. No notability.104.163.153.162 (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as spamfest, true, but mainly because a before indicates almost zero coverage in reliable sources. Spam, after all, can be cleared up: a fundamental lack of notability can't be.  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 12:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2017 (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.