Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/21st century technology plc

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. Kurykh (talk) 07:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21st century technology plc

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

Cannot find any in-depth reliable sources to indicate notability. Anything I've found has been just reprints of company press releases or brief snapshot profiles that indicate only that the company exists - nothing that passes WP:CORPDEPTH. I have checked Google and Google News under Toad Group, TG21, and 21st Century Technology. The problem is compounded by the fact that all 3 names also throw up a lot of noise in a Google search. "21st Century Technology" even when paired with "company" gives nothing, with "plc" it's mostly just its own website. TG21 is apparently also an experimental drug, a government form, and a designated model for a number of other random products. Toad Group mostly brings up hits about groups of the Mario character, although that name is over 11 years out of date now, so it's not that surprising. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unremarkable company. Adding {{Db-inc}} is enough. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 21:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined for speedy on that grounds previously, although god knows why. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you added a reference to a website that describes itself as offering "Press Release Distribution," which is rather meaningless in terms of establishing notability. The other one, to Proactiveinvestors, about the profit warning, is at least independent. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I just can't find enough reliable sources. However, I do now believe Eastmain was right in de-speedying. It's listed on the London Stock Exchange and I can see why he'd feel a discussion is warranted, per WP:LISTED. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Seems to fail WP:GNG. Kaldari (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD A7 applies here (Unremarkable organisation). Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 19:54, 1 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.