Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zaarly (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. Michig (talk) 08:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zaarly[edit]

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

I noticed this instantly after DGG (who also coincidentally tagged it from July 2013) deleted and added again this article and, as I concur it seems questionably notable and improvable, I have nominated it myself. My searches found nothing better than a few passing mentions with "Zaarly company" at News, Books, browsers and Highbeam but certainly nothing to suggest a better notable article yet. Notifying past AfDers Bonadea, AllyD and Ceyockey. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. there are many of these articles from earlier years that need review. The most recent item other than a mention I can find is [1], from the Denver Post, but Iconsider it a press release. DGG ( talk ) 07:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - little to no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and above comments. CatcherStorm ^talk 08:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Delete no significant reliable coverage that I can find. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG clearly lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:46, 27 December 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.