Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThunderCloud Subs

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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ThunderCloud Subs

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

fails WP:CORP. all it gets is very routine coverage in the austin media. LibStar (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No credible claim of significance in the article itself, first of all, so it could have been Speedily Deleted under WP:A7 rather than going for an AfD. Anyway, as we're here... the GNG isn't met. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:54, 5 March 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.