Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santoro London (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Santoro London
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable. As mentioned in the last AFD, the awards are spurious and probably paid for. This article was written almost entirely by SPAs, some of which have already been banned as promo/spam accounts. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep: Article appears to be well sourced. If the award section is sketchy in some way, you could simply remove it entirely and the article could still keep the remaining content. If the awards are not valid you need proof of that. Regards, VERSACESPACE 06:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite the valiant refbombing efforts — mostly with sources of the poorest quality, and some cited multiple times to make it look impressive — there's nothing to suggest notability; fails WP:GNG (that one Indy reference notwithstanding) and WP:CORP. How this utterly un-encyclopaedic promo blurb has survived so long, is beyond me. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Comes on as a glorified advert and I can only echo the phrase "utterly un-encyclopaedic".  RobinCarmody (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2021 (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.