- 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. MBisanz talk 01:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MetDaan[edit]
- MetDaan (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)
Non-notable magazine company that has no coverage in RS, also promotional. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 23:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it stands - there's nothing here - David Gerard (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not even mentions to be found, let alone "coverage." Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and I myself find this to be G11 and am nearly tagging it as such. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete WP:CSD#G11. A billion views/month and I've never even heard of it??? --Randykitty (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per WP:G11 as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Two pages of Google hits, and every single one self-published (including this article...) Narky Blert (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2016 (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.