Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dingbats (notebook)

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. Sandstein 16:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dingbats (notebook)

[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)

Appears to be promotional and its only source is the official website (thereby not being verifiable due to being a self-published source). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBRAND. WP:BEFORE check failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is hopelessly promotional. Vexations (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page was created by me - I have no affiliations to the company. It was made because the company is expanding in the market, discussed frequently on social medias such as YouTube and demonstrates a sustainable approach. Since the nomination for deletion, I have removed unnecessary excessive praise for the company and sourced secondary articles and continue to do so. I published the page, with the intention to add further information on reviewing. This is allowed into consideration for improving rather than deleting an article, as the article was recently created and more time could be allowed to develop the article WP:BEFORE. AmaranthinePsithurism (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
discussed frequently on social medias such as YouTube is not a notability criterion that any notability guide endorses. It is worth noting in the AfD that the company has been running an influencer campaign in YouTube with product giveaways. The YouTube coverage is not "organic", but paid for. We should almost never accept YouTube as a source, but ESPECIALLY not in this case.Vexations (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete G11 level spam sourced to primary sources and press releases. To be fair, there is one reliable independent source here... which ranked it 69/100 in a list of 100 notebooks. Not exactly an indication of encyclopedic notability. Spicy (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2020 (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.