Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Jewelry


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 12:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Larry Jewelry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Basically promotional with only borderline notability. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia  DGG ( talk ) 09:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and failure of WP:GNG and WP:COMP. TheAstuteObserver (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  10:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. I couldn't find any reliable sources that cover this company. Therefore, notability cannot be asserted and this article fails WP:GNG.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   11:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Tentative keep but will accept WP:TNT. A news search using the company's Chinese name revealed several sources which suggest adequate notability. I've found some in-depth news coverage from 2013 about the company's business strategy, and its merger with one of the biggest pharmacy chains in Hong Kong earlier this year . Deryck C. 18:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete doesn't quite meet GNG in my view, for lack of substantive coverage. Also a little too promotional; if at some point sufficient coverage is found, then we're better off starting over. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:55, 5 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.