Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PujaShoppe

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. Michig (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PujaShoppe

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

Contested A7. Has some coverage, but they read like press releases. As a whole, doesn't meet the coverage required by WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Also has promotionalism concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NCORP and WP:PROMO. Insignificant reliable coverage of the subject. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom; insufficient sources to claim notability, and insufficient to pass WP:NCORP. Shall I bother guessing who contested the A7...? I any case, it almost qualifies under G11. — O Fortuna^{velut luna...} 07:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--There's a complete lack of WP:RS to claim any notability.Expected our brave tag remover to participate in this discussion but his field of expertise seems to have evaded the field of AfD for good!Winged Blades^Godric 07:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Complete lack of notability and very WP:PROMO in nature. -- Dane ^talk 22:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and Winged Blades of Godric CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per criterion G11. VQuakr (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:46, 15 April 2017 (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.