Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home Leisure Direct

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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Home_Leisure_Direct

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

WP:NOTLINK This is just a collection of links that has no value to the reader or any encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not promotional nor is it a catalog of lists. Companies do not list their product catagories on this site therefore this paragraph should be removed. WP:PROMOTION. The claim of having the largest range of games room products on display in Europe WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:OC#OPINION. How has this statistic been verified? Please state your source. I say that this page has been created by the business owner therefore is a conflict of interests and fundamentally promotional in intent. Rightbackatya (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - IMHO this reads more like promotional work than an encyclopedic article, That aside I can find absolutely nothing on Google News to suggest notability, Had there been sufficient (or any for that matter!) sources on GNews I probably would've Kept but there we go, No evidence of notability fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP for lack of independent reliable sources. That's not surprising; it's a small company, less than 10 years old, with a total of two stores. --MelanieN (talk) 20:54, 25 March 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.