Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vuly Trampolines


 * 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   speedy deleted by Kudpung under CSD G11. Graham 87 03:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Vuly Trampolines

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable enough for Wikipedia. Many of the listed sources are either primary or parochial, the article has a blatantly promotional tone, and the accounts that have significantly contributed to it are pretty much only here for that purpose. Graham 87 00:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Promotional? Absolutely! COI? More than likely based on the SPAs involved! We can also add WP:NPOV based on the potential COI writing in a promotional tone. However, I do feel that there are enough WP:RS to establish WP:GNG., , and to start with. I would say the best thing to do is strip this down to the basic facts as stated in the references. Everything else belongs in their brochure in Toys R Us. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - per FoolMeOnce2Times. ö   Brambleberry   of   RiverClan  21:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. Spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - I have been thinking about this and I think that it would be better to have a completely new non-advertising article rather than attempting to salvage this one. Dabbler (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Or, it would be easier to keep this article and remove everything other than a paragraph that states who they are and what they do. Stub it out. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My problem with that approach is that it leaves a stub which may never be developed or else will be reverted back to the advertising article we see today as the only editors interested may be the ones with a COI. The company is basically unknown outside Australia but I have no notion about its notability in that country. Dabbler (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that it may never materialize, but that is not a reason to delete it. If that were the case, there would be no such thing as a stub template. Also, keeping it on a watch list so that spam does not get added back in is an option. I just hate to see articles deleted because they are too short, spammy, or anything other than un notable, assuming that it is notable. By stating you would create a new article seems to me that you believe somehow that it is notable, otherwise, we would just go right with delete and skip the recreation. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:44, 21 June 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.