Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victorian Plumbing

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. Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Plumbing

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable. The refs are merely notices: one of them is even an advertisement they are looking for a new advertising agency. t DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has facts are from a variety of often cited, reputable sources. Business is notable as has had a variety of non-incidental coverage and none of these are adverts.JoePascoe (Talk) 16:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC) — JoePascoe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak Delete I don't think "notices" is a fair description or saying that this is an advertisement. A couple of the articles, including that one, are bylined by editors from the publication. However, they are all short blurbs and do not show any substantive investigation into the topic. We need more meaningful coverage. CorporateM (Talk) 19:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete i agreed with the initial speedy on this. the article is just promo and the company fails WP:ORG. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.