Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleeklens.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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeklens.com

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

After removing a series of promotional sources and those that dont mention the subject, there's one decent source, a primary link and a dead link. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising overall and basically no claims of significance, all amount to nothing close for an acceptable article in policies. SwisterTwister talk 18:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam; sample: "...its sole purpose is to provide quality Adobe Lightroom’s products for making the post production process an easier experience". Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2017 (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.