Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleek Kitchens


 * 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. czar 15:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Sleek Kitchens

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Deceptively well-sourced article. On closer examination, all references are either to the company's own website or press releases. There's one award ("Reader's Digest Trusted Brand awards in 2015 based on customer reviews in the Modular Kitchens category"), which appear to be very minor and not notable. Does not meet WP:CORP, hence: Delete. (Note: the related article Asian Paints may merit a second look, too). Randykitty (talk) 10:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete agreed, searches came up with little to no information. Doesn't meet WP:CORP. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi! I created this page as I felt that people could benefit from the information being posted. I used whatever references I could find and tried to ensure that the content does not read like an advertisement. If possible, can you please give me some details on what I can improve upon when I create pages such as these? Thanks! Sportonion555 —Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Removed awards section from the page so that the content is not promotional as per wikipedia guidelines. Additionally, added categories to this page. Additionally, regarding the point, "independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability," I have added mainstream media articles from newspapers such as 'The Hindu' to back the content on the page. It's a kind request to please consider this appeal to not delete this page. Sportonion555 —Preceding undated comment added 06:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: in fact, you didn't add any source after the article was nominated for deletion. Please note that the article is not being nominated for being promotional, but for not meeting our inclusion guidelines. --Randykitty (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Modified the reference links as per Randykitty's suggestion. Please have a look at the reference sources present at this point. Do these sources meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines? Sportonion555 —Preceding undated comment added 12:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Small note: Please sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ), not three. Thanks!  Rebb  ing   18:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as nothing at all actually suggesting the necessary solid signs of a solidly improvable article. Delete for now at best and wait for better coverage, SwisterTwister   talk  05:29, 23 April 2016 (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.