Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ShareKitchen

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ShareKitchen

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

Unremarkable organization. Page relies on primary sources only. Reads like an advert too. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 06:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reading like an advert isn't really a reason to delete as the article can always be rewritten. The subject, however, does not appear sufficiently notable to satisfy WP:GNG. Only two references are provided, one of which is the official site and the other makes no mention of the subject at all. I can't find any additional sources. §everal⇒|Times 17:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is an interesting project model, but lacking in sufficient reliable 3rd party sources discussing ShareKitchen itself. It is worth noting the comments by the original contributor on the Talk:ShareKitchen page; however even if all the sources mentioned were verifiably in the article, they would fall below WP:CORPDEPTH, at least for the time being. AllyD (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2012 (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.