Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PLUS7

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. Sources do exist, but they are either trivial or not independent of the subject. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PLUS7

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

No reliable refs other then primary sourcing. Planetary ChaosTalk 06:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Sources exist that show article meeds WP:GNG. [1][2][3][4][5][6] The article is a stub and hasn't been improved to include them. That will come in time. --LauraHale (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The first link refers to media advertising in Dubai, a different company with the same name. The third link is about Mubi, not Plus7. Link four is not exactly creditable as anyone can apply for membership and join and write a story. It's rather bloggish with a trivial mention. The fifth link is a blog and could be challenged. The second and last link seem to be the only two and I don't believe this qualifies as significant coverage in "General notability guidelines". Coverage seems to be local and trivial at best.

Planetary ChaosTalk 10:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 15:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding enough reliable sources at this time. Of the links given, I have to agree with PCR on what they are, although I'd like to mention that the last two links appear to be press releases, which generally cannot be used as reliable sources since PR usually comes directly from the company. Most of what I have found are either press releases or trivial mentions. It seems that other than a bit of press anticipating the site's release, there hasn't been much afterwards to show that it's notable at this point in time. I would recommend incubating or userfying this until more sources become available. It's definitely something to watch for and I believe that it will become notable at some point in time, but there just aren't the reliable sources in the here and now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete: None of the above sources show notability. SL93 (talk) 02:23, 28 December 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.