Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snap Limited

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snap Limited

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

Not notable, no reliable sources. No GNews/Books hits, GHits do not appear to have anything useful either. Brought to AFD since article makes a claim of significance. GregJackP Boomer! 12:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I haven't found any sources despite searching with both Google US and New Zealand news. I wouldn't know how significant this company is to New Zealanders but it seems non-notable to me. SwisterTwister talk 14:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, as it only receives a passing mention at most on the articles secondary sources, with the same being true of the companies search engine results.--Donkey1989 (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 20:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)-gadfium 20:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Creator of article admits he works for the company. Article creation seems to be an attempt at promotion of the company rather than creation of an independently notable article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the purest WP:SPAM. Qworty (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Largest independent internet provider in the South Island. Article does need despammed and blog entries etc. need to be weeded out from references, will try to get to that in the next few days if I have time. Not sure why nobody else can find reliable reporting of them, I found two in a matter of minutes. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not advertising. The article has one secondary source, and appears to be little more than a trophy cabinet of awards won by the company.--SUFC Boy 10:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete (due to lack of sources) ~~Weak Keep~~ needs to be de-spammed/COI/advert per my markings, notability claim is upheld in reference. We may not have heard of this company, but as the largest (independent) ISP on the island, this has some notability. Widefox; talk 11:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC) Widefox; talk 18:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't find enough to make it warrant a keep - they are not significant enough - by independent they seem to mean first after all the main telecommunication companies. The awards don't seem that significant either. NealeFamily (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2012 (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.