Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VBR-Belgium


 * 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. Secret account 23:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

VBR-Belgium

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This company and its products do not appear to be notable. Three of them have had multiple tags on them for years. The articles were mostly created by an editor with a copyright violation problem. I searched and found only one independent source:  However that link goes to a review on a website that's just based on Youtube videos produced by the inventor, and the website itself looks self-published. I won't nominate the template and category for deletion here, as I assume those will be deleted as well if all these are deleted first.
 * I am also nominating:
 * (now just a redirect, but it's no more notable than the other VBR products).
 * (A user page, but with an article posted there.)
 * (now just a redirect, but it's no more notable than the other VBR products).
 * (A user page, but with an article posted there.)
 * (now just a redirect, but it's no more notable than the other VBR products).
 * (A user page, but with an article posted there.)

Rezin (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For more information on the editor, see Sockpuppet investigations/Ctway Rezin (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

DELETE...I agree not noteable, delete all of the above...especially the user page, with the backdoor article...not appropriate to say the least--RAF910 (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:54, 25 November 2014 (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.