Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windward Reports

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 redirect to Windward Studios#2003-Present: Windward Reports / Windward Studios. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Windward Reports

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

From talk page: The "article" is unsourced marketing for the company, and the first entry on the talk page is an officer of the company admitting it was created by their staff. This isn't encyclopedic content. It's a press release. Mangoe (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment I am fixing an incomplete nomination for User:halleyscomet; I have no opinion to offer at this time. Mangoe (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Windward Studios, considering these seem to be their products and there is a more-than-adequate paragraph about the 'Reports' in that article. Possibly there may be offline/pre-internet coverage but, considering the article was created by company staff, I'm not confident of the article being improved. Sionk (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Windward_Studios#2003-Present:_Windward_Reports_.2F_Windward_Studios. The parent article isn't long enough, or the daughter subject (the "Reports") notable enough, to support a fork at this time. Pax 00:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment: I've haven't bothered digging to confirm, but at first glance, the parent article reeks of promo copy-vio that will need addressing. Pax 00:16, 6 May 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.