Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nannyshare.co.uk

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. The "keep" opinions merely assert the existence of sources, without addressing the "delete" side's concerns about their quality and the promotional nature of the content. Sandstein 12:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nannyshare.co.uk[edit]

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

Nannyshare.co.uk is unbridled, blatant advertising by a firm with no notability. A plea for improvement was made four years ago with no one interested in doing anything about it. sirlanz 11:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search turns up notable sources like Guardian, Financial Times etc. The article needs a overhaul.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Google hits aren't enough, you have to actually look at them. I see press releases, passing mentions and promotional churnalism. That's apart from the blatantly WP:PROMO nature of the article - David Gerard (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam, likely written by a paid editor. No point in wasting volunteer editors' time in re-writing is; pls see WP:BOGOF. So delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not seeing the problems that overtake the policy WP:PRESERVE. Evidence of notability has been provided. Unscintillating (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Evidence of notability has been provided" - where? - David Gerard (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "keep" !vote above, and I also found references in the article. Unscintillating (talk) 11:58, 9 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.