Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totem Acoustic


 * 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. I do not find the promotional element persuasive, but HighKing's comments about the policy re: sourcing are the strongest argument posed in this discussion. Daniel (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Totem Acoustic

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Absolutely promotional and poorly sourced. – Cupper 52 Discuss! 17:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.

– Cupper 52 Discuss! 17:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * keep. I do agree that it seems to have become a highly spammy article, but I believe that the brand is well-enough known and there are sufficient sources (notably the reviews linked in the product section) to attest to its notability. I suggest that it be reverted to the least spammy version and edited where necessary. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 17:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is about the company, not any of the products. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 12:38, 9 February 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.