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.
This article should never have been released from Articles for Creation in 2012. It's had five years to be improved, but shows no signs of significant independent reliables coverage in general news (etc) sources. Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NCORP.
Sionk (
talk) 23:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - The article is about a Dutch company and not a Danish one and this debate should therefore not be included in the Denmark-related deletion discussions but to the Netherlands-related deletion discussions.
Ramblersen (
talk) 11:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - I don't see much out there for references in the English language. Of those I do, nothing would satisfy
WP:CORPDEPTH. Maybe if someone was able to provide something more substantial in Dutch. Otherwise, there really isn't anything that can be approved with the article. --
CNMall41 (
talk) 23:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete there is barely enough reference to meet
WP:GNG. As a sport equipment company I believe much of reference to them (if they exist) should be online, but search shows nothing like
WP:SIGCOV only their domain and adverts mentions kept showing up. The company exists, but is not notable. —Ammarpad (
talk) 10:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)reply
there is barely enough reference to meet
WP:GNG - so you're saying they do meet GNG, or don't? -
The BushrangerOne ping only 05:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)reply
They didn't, although some exists. "Bare" expresses not meeting threshold while acknowledging the effort to meet. —Ammarpad (
talk) 06:34, 14 November 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.
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.
This article should never have been released from Articles for Creation in 2012. It's had five years to be improved, but shows no signs of significant independent reliables coverage in general news (etc) sources. Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NCORP.
Sionk (
talk) 23:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - The article is about a Dutch company and not a Danish one and this debate should therefore not be included in the Denmark-related deletion discussions but to the Netherlands-related deletion discussions.
Ramblersen (
talk) 11:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - I don't see much out there for references in the English language. Of those I do, nothing would satisfy
WP:CORPDEPTH. Maybe if someone was able to provide something more substantial in Dutch. Otherwise, there really isn't anything that can be approved with the article. --
CNMall41 (
talk) 23:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete there is barely enough reference to meet
WP:GNG. As a sport equipment company I believe much of reference to them (if they exist) should be online, but search shows nothing like
WP:SIGCOV only their domain and adverts mentions kept showing up. The company exists, but is not notable. —Ammarpad (
talk) 10:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)reply
there is barely enough reference to meet
WP:GNG - so you're saying they do meet GNG, or don't? -
The BushrangerOne ping only 05:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)reply
They didn't, although some exists. "Bare" expresses not meeting threshold while acknowledging the effort to meet. —Ammarpad (
talk) 06:34, 14 November 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.