Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watches.com


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Watches.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of sustained coverage in independent sources. There's a few news articles here about the earlier activities of the founders, and one Adweek blog post that doesn't fully support any claims to notability. There's a warmed-over press release over at HuffPo.. It all looks like a puff piece about a company that few have shown an interest in. Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Coverage is too small, mostly passing/press releases/unreliable, to make this pass Notability (companies) or Notability (websites), IMHO. WP:CORPSPAM. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   05:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   05:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   05:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- too promotional to be worth keeping. This content belongs on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:30, 22 May 2017 (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.