Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swags Galore


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Swags Galore

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article on non-notable company. Every one of the references is either their PR, or based on it.  DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Even the references to their own website "Company Overview" do not seem to be supported by that 3 sentence summary. Aside from that, the 3rd party references are mainly about the firm as a stock-pick; I'm not seeing demonstration of notability here. AllyD (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. A Google search for ("swags galore") turned up the company's own sites and a hatful of directories and review websites, but nothing suggestive of in-depth coverage by independent sources.  Searching Google News and Google News Archives likewise yielded nothing useful.  The investment-advice pieces cited in the article suggested another search line: I tried combining the name with various terms likely to occur in financial journalism, e.g. ("swags galore" "earnings"), ("swags galore" "debt"), ("swags galore" "revenue"), to see if I could find business-oriented coverage.  Got nothing more than the pieces already cited in the article; to my eye, they don't reach the level of in-depth coverage called for by WP:GNG.  Ammodramus (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Article avoids any obvious "CLICK HERE FOR SAVINGS!!" type advertising language but still reads way more like a brochure than an encyclopedia article: "unique products", "liberal return policy", etc.  Alexa rank well over 100,000 doesn't suggest this could be saved. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pretty spammy. Seems to have some press, but not exactly notable 173.13.150.22 (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - The references never indicate any notability and say the same thing which talks about their services and nothing else... thus promotional. Additionally, the website's "overview" page and the references never mention anything of the company's history. Multiple detailed searches through Google News provided nothing. I'm voting delete with no prejudice for a future notable article. SwisterTwister   talk  02:53, 11 January 2013 (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.