Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flowmaster

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. Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flowmaster[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Promotional article about non-notable company with no substantial, independent coverage. Does not meet WP:NORG, and particularly WP:ORGCRITE. A previous prod was removed by a significant contributor, which is why I'm bringing this to AFD. Hug^syrup 09:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Appears to be a direct violation of WP:G11. The "article" doesn't even have any references. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 per PuzzledVegtable, unsourced and clearly promotional. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11. Pretty much cut-and-dried self-promotion. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent company Holley Performance Products. This article, which has been here for almost 12 years, does not qualify for speedy deletion as obvious spam. As written now it reads more like a general description of the company, its history and its products, with no price list or call to action as might be expected in blatant promotion. But this standalone article of a fairly known brand does have its problems. StonyBrook (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2019 (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.