Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icelolly.com

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 keep. Davewild (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Icelolly.com

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

This page does not meet WP:GNG.DominosChamp2930 (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are several reliable independent sources that focus on this company. See: [1] [2] [3]. The larger concern with this article is WP:NPOV. I've taken some steps towards removing and altering the promotional content on this page, but there's still more to be done. It's at a state where it's fixable without a fundamental rewrite. ~ Rob^Talk 16:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are quite a few sources, just about passes WP:GNG I believe. I agree it needs a rewrite- currently it just trying to celebrity namedrop, if the "Work with Celebrities" and "TV shows" sections cannot be sourced, they should be removed. Also, it should be moved to Icelolly (website) per WP:TITLE (shouldn't use .com in article name). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed those sections for now. Even if they were sourced, it isn't exactly neutral to name drop every celebrity the company has ever worked with. WP:PROMO comes to mind. I think the article is as close to within policy as I can get it at the moment. Everything is sourced except the initial text, which I'm going to go searching for a source on now. ~ Rob^Talk 16:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:18, 7 July 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.