Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concert Zap

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. czar ⨹ 22:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concert Zap

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

Advertising, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 00:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete unless anyone can find the sources where Concert Zap was supposedly mentioned, then my !vote is a keep. Unfortunately, I severely doubt that Concert Zap is covered in reliable sources. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another promotional article, failing WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, by a WP:DISRUPTive promotional editor. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any independent reliable sources cited here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd have to agree with those above. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 02:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above - No evidence of notability - Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Notable per coverage. Emilysantoss (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see no sources who write about the company itself. The Banner talk 19:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the coverage cited in the article appears to be independently reported; all of it looks like advertising and press releases submitted by the company itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh god her !vote has outweighed all of ours now!, Admin should close per her now!. </sarcasm> –Davey2010^Talk 03:13, 11 January 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.