Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southdown Creative

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. Tone 18:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Southdown Creative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Vanity page by COI. not a single source. fails GNG Rayman60 (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:ORG, a googling shows no notable coverage, media reports, or anything of the sort (or in fact any RS). I agree with Rayman60 that it appears to have been created as a COI vanity (page creator named Fred, company founder named Fred, unlikely coincidence). Surprised its been around so long and no one noticed. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 07:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Entirely advertising, not notable. Reywas92^Talk 19:52, 25 February 2019 (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.