Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Shag

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. Bucketsofg 21:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Green Shag

Green Shag (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

no references in article or on Google MsHyde 04:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, nn, spam. Edeans 04:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Natalie 04:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NN spam. janejellyroll 06:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - the article is a bit advertisish, but can be fixed with some editting. What is missing appears to be reliable sources, but there are (were) article in major local papers

• [1]
• [2]
• [3] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 17:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

• Comment: those are not articles, they are trivial mentions in local press from press releases.-MsHyde 17:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Spam with no secondary sources, their own 'sightings page' lists the three links Whpq supplied along with another one, two of which are from an online publishing... thing which requires readers to actually purchase the rights to read them, the others are just passing mentions. If that's the best secondary sources the company itself can come up with then I'm pretty sure I'll fair no better. I'm sure a WP contributor can build a less promotional article should Green Shag ever reach a wider audience. QuagmireDog 19:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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.