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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GaS Digital Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. A BEFORE found mentions but nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. The first three references on the page are reliable sources but they are not in-depth about the company. CNMall41 (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, and Internet. CNMall41 (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: See also the related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Sutton (broadcaster) --DanielRigal (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete There is a little bit of coverage but nothing much in depth from high quality sources. The Hollywood Reporter article seems to be about as good as it gets. It doesn't seem like enough for an article. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2023 (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.