Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ERA Prometheus

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. no policy-based reason to keep. Frankly the lone keep !vote was promotional. After I judged consensus I looked at the article, and it is blatantly promotional. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ERA Prometheus

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

ERA Prometheus (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)

• Queried speedy delete as advertizing. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Added much needed criticism to the claims of "universal affordability. Also removed the "Titan Edition" section as it made the page looks like a sales page. Before the page was hastily deleted, this "Titan Edition" section was also continually being stripped down. This clearly shows there was multiple and ongoing good faith efforts still being made on this page to fix the issues. Lastly, this watch model is notable and encyclopedic within the luxury industry. It is an (1) atypically priced watch model going for 1/10th the market price (affordable within haute segment as verified from 3rd party sources) and (2) it is the most crowd funded watch of its kind coming out of NYC, which is a fashion authority. Izazii (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (as CSD requester). The article is clear advertising for a Kickstarter product that is not the subject of substantial coverage. The NYTimes and Vogue references doesn't mention the product. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Cannot find evidence of notability. The only citation that resembles any kind of significant independent coverage is this one from "The Levity Ball", but that writeup is peppered with affiliate links. Colin M (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:NOTPROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2019 (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.