Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuts4Nuts (2nd nomination)

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 --JForget 01:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nuts4Nuts

Nuts4Nuts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

No assertion of notability, no coverage in secondary sources or evidence that the company passes the notability guidelines for corporations and products. First page of google hits shows wikipedia at the top, youtube, the company's website, flikr, not much else (1710 total). Page is an orphan, has been since 2005 when it was created. WLU (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Note - second nomination, first can be found here - was 2.5 years ago, original discussion contained no real rationale for the keep !votes besides "now it's not nonsense". (if someone knows how to put the 1st nom in the pretty box, please do so as I forgot to) WLU (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with this very thorough nomination; no notability. I declined a speedy deletion on this because it was nominated by, apparently, someone representing a (non-notable) company of the same name who felt that this was keeping them from their rightful place (I'm paraphrasing). Upon consideration, I don't really see any reason to have either article. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:CORP, not notable. Arsenikk (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - non notable (and no assertion thereof).  Frank  |  talk  17:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No assertation of notability per WP:CORP. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per good rationale given by WLU (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 03:17, 14 May 2008 (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.