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. postdlf (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Momento Photo Books[edit]

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

declined speedy, not really sure why when this was created by a single purpose editor with no third party sources, blatant advert LibStar (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was the awards that made the closing admin err on the side of caution, as it does give an assertion of notability. It is promotional sounding and I've found enough out there to suggest that the original editor this is MPB's creator. I've pointed him towards the COI policy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That said, I wasn't able to find anything to show that the company is really notable. I can't find any true coverage for the company and the awards seem to be minor, not even really the type that we'd use to count towards notability in general. I did a search under the title of the article and also under "Momento Pro", as that seems to be the same company. I couldn't find anything for that either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another spam article on a self publishing company. There's no reason to think that this company would have been the subject of in-depth coverage in independent RS Nick-D (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2014 (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.