Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesca's Collection

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 G11 deleted by User:Athaenara. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 19:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca's Collection

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

Delete. Lack of notability and blatantly promotional in nature. CSD tag removed. Lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cind.amuse 07:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is merely an advertisement for a rather obscure store. It reads like an advertising brochure. Rotmo (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatantly promotional in nature, obviously meets the CSD and I have no idea why the tag was removed. I won't re-add the tag but if an admin can get around to speedy'ing this (per {{db-spam}}) we could save a whole week's worth of unnecessary 'process'. Swarm ^X 09:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - blatant promotion. --bonadea contributions talk 09:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Lovetinkle (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per criterion G11. VQuakr (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Clearly promotional. I restored the CSD G11 tag, as the rationale to remove it made no sense. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 16:34, 5 March 2011 (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.