Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HostWithLove

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. No evidence that sufficient coverage exists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HostWithLove

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

Delete per WP:NCORP and WP:PROMO. Secondary sources do not support the notability of the subject - article is written with a promotional tone. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and any kind of coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not notable as sources such as whois and business databases don't support the notability of the subject. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per coverage. --JessikaRita (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide sources to confirm your claims that it is notable. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable subject. Article creator is single-purpose account with probable undeclared conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. Citobun (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hardly any coverage in reliable independent sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as essentially clear advertising, from the listed company information, to services and then where to find and contact them, that's nothing but advertising and is not something we should ever think otherwise about; expected, only one focused account has started and contributed to this so that speaks for itself. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 18 October 2016 (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.