Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RedViking

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RedViking

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

Fails WP:GNG, another promotional article created by the creator. Ireneshih (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe it passes GNG; will take a look to see if there is anything non-neutral that can be struck. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 15:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional and non-notable The article is not consistent. In the same paragraph it says it was spun off from superior control in 2010, that it was incorporated in 2011, and that it merged with superior Controls in 2013. (that last 2 points have references; the first has a reference that only refers to other parts of the sentence. ) Thisi sn ot only promotional writing, but incompetent promotional writing. If Superior Controls itself is notable, which I have not investigated, someone could write an article about it that mentions this division. Every reference here is either a mere notice, a press release marked as such, or an article in a trade journal that is essentially promotional. DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I will also say because none of this seems solid enough for a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 19:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I believe this is pretty non notable, most of the references are merely fractionally respinned press releases. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:23, 24 February 2016 (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.