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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sturvs[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. There is one ref on traffic numbers but all the rest are either domain for sale sites of blank pages. Recent edit summary says " Sturvs is now a new company. New website is set to go live in few weeks" which is contrary to the content of the page. Probably way too soon . Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur with the nomination, everything listed here is only fitting for a business listing and the sources themselves are in fact only published PR, certainly no substance. There's essentially nothing else beyond that. SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing close to notability could be found. 07:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me)

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.