Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LetsBab

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 speedy delete. Per G11. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LetsBab

[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)

New business that fails WP:GNG, as it has not yet attracted attention in secondary sources. Sdkb (talk) 06:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This one could likely be speedied. There is nothing out there as far as reliable coverage in secondary sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't in anyway pass GNG and WP:RS. @CNMall41: i concur it could have been speedy delete, no need bringing it here. ShunDream (talk) 07:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Went ahead and marked for G11, nothing here worth salvaging. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 07:13, 21 November 2018 (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.