Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syla


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me

Syla

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Completely unsourced article that seems to be based on first-hand information about the company. The speedy delete spam tag was removed by an IP editor who has only made edits to this article and an article about the company's founder. Fails WP:CORP. janejellyroll 00:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to be self-promotional.  Gan fon  00:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both Syla and Sylvie Cachay, self-promotional and fails WP:BIO respectively --⁪froth T 00:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Syla and Sylvie Cachay -- a walled garden. WP:N is the main issue, but the latter also fails WP:V. The author asserts that " work has been featured in international fashion magazines inluding Vogue, Elle, Marie Claire, and trade publications such as Women's Wear Daily," but 1) we don't have verification and 2) even if it's true, her work may be notable without her being notable. --N Shar 00:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are right about Sylvie Cachay. Should I add it to this AfD or create a new one? janejellyroll 00:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I shouldn't respond to another thread (I'm new at this XfD stuff), but I think Sylvie Cachay should be added to this AfD nom. — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 05:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete as spam - ghits Results 1 - 6 of about 8 for Syla luxury swimwear and Results 1 - 10 of about 17 for Syla luxury swim wear fails WP:N Jeepday 03:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * keep it seems like this swamwear is just about to come out so lets see if it does thats all i am sayingOo7565 04:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ganfon (seems to be self-promotion) — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 05:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam. Philippe Beaudette 06:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not only probably self-promotion, it lacks enough significance. -Adun 13:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete spam DUBJAY04 16:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not relevant. It does appear to be spam as mentioed by a user above. Telly   addict Editor review! 16:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    On Belay!  18:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete-- as mentioned, self promo/spam. --Spufum 02:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both per froth ffm  yes? 19:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per WP:SPAM.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  05:20, 11 February 2007 (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.