Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Napier Partnership Limited
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 02:34, 8 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 02:34, 8 February 2023 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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 no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Napier Partnership Limited[edit]
- Napier Partnership Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 5 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 20:30, 11 January 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The only significant coverage cited in the article is the company profile, which is a primary source, and it isn't clear that the league tables are sufficient evidence of notability. A search via Google doesn't find much that could be used in the article - the main sources of information I can find are from its own website and from Marketing Week Marketplace, which seems to consist of press releases and not independent coverage. FeaturesExec also seems to be a press release. Peter E. James (talk) 00:46, 21 January 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.