Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Frame

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 03:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Big Frame

Big Frame (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 marketing organization. There are only two or three sources that could possibly count towards GNG. The numerous remaining are either blogs tied to the company or the company itself. The text and history appear to be promotional. Delta13C (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep Enough reliable sources to meet GNG (certainly more than "two or three") and there only a handful of references that are primary sources. Article has a small amount of promotional writing but that's not a valid reason for deletion. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as corporate spam on an entity with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH and most sources are PRIMARY and/or fail criteria in WP:RS. Even after editting the article to remove puffery and unnecessary detail, this article still fails. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:11, 18 January 2017 (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.