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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pebble Smart LLC[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and likely WP:PROMO. Over half the references are primary, secondary references read like from a press kit or fail reliability. I did a google search and found some occasional coverage, but failing WP:CORPDEPTH _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User s.s.jin: Edits have been made to diversify secondary sources and address concerns of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.s.jin (talk • contribs) 03:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@S.s.jin: Thanks for this, however all the media coverage seems based on the same images/video footage which indicates somehow PR-related reporting. Also, could you let the community know how you are related to Pebble Smart? I noticed the family names of the owner and your username are identical. If you have a conflict of interest this must be disclosed. Many thanks. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake Brockman: Ah, understandable. I wrote this as a late-night practice, as I am a relatively new editor. Owners of the company are extended family. Upon reading through the simple conflict of interest guide, I see now I have violated several guidelines and should have consulted other members of the community before publishing. As such, I add my recommendation that the article should be deleted._pseudonym s.s.jin

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not inherently notable, clearly written with a Coi, and most of the refs are not reputable: even the media reports appear to be the result of a slow-news day ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2017 (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.