Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Business. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Business|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Business. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Businesses

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) 00:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allegiance Communications

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

This article doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Nothing remarkable about it to be on Wikipedia. The content highlights usual announcements about mergers and acquisitions which any other company of this clout would be doing. Xaxing (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A defunct operation which was acquired and merged into another business (which itself does not have an article so is not a Redirect target). I am seeing nothing beyond routine announcements to indicate that it achieved notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:52, 18 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.

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brief Cognitive Assessment Tool

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

Having seen another of the author's articles which featured heavy use of ® and was associated with Mansbach I'm now incapable of seeing this article as anything other than an advert and, in places, a close paraphrase of the company's website. I'd appreciate the community's opinion. Cabayi (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Brief Cognitive Assessment Tool is a cognitive instrument, not a company. Countless neuropsychological assessments emanating from neuropsychology have dedicated wikipedia pages, such as Mini–Mental State Examination, Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System, Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery and the Wechsler Memory Scale etc., – all of which are cost-based and were developed by commercial entities. The Brief Cognitive Assessment Tool is used extensively in the public sector, such as in grants funded by the Maryland Office of Health Care Quality and by state governments such as Ohio's Medical program for cognitive assessment. It is also currently being used by various universities in the United States, Turkey, Poland, and China. In the healthcare spectrum, it is used in primary care settings, as well as in gerontology, neurology, oncology, and rehabilitation. The Brief Cognitive Assessment Tool, which has been withstood peer-review in several scientific journals, has encyclopedic merit as a wikipedia page. Rymace (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rymace, this discussion isn't about whether the product is notable, it probably is, but about the article. In contrast to the articles you've cited the article you've written comes across as an advert. I note that most, if not all, of your contributions have been for products of Mansbach Health Tools (this article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The BCAT Working Memory Exercise Book - [1], ENRICH Brain Health - [2]). It appears your conflict of interest has left you tone-deaf to the way your article reads, and to the close paraphrasing of the company's material. You also seem to have a blind spot in describing it as "a cognitive instrument" overlooking its existence as a commercial product. If it weren't for the time elapsed since the article was created, and the number of editors who have touched it at some point, I'd have no hesitation in nominating the article for speedy deletion as an advert. Cabayi (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete raw scientific market. pure example of the thing. Nothing like this has a place in WP. Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- overly promotional and on a subject of unclear individual notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, overly promotional. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:30, 30 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.

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 Redirect to Tourism in Gujarat. That is clearly the consensus, but I am also personally taking the decision to delete the history, as it is purely promotional, and there is no justification for keeping it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Ahmedabad

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

WP:NOTTRAVEL. Obvious tourist brochure content. Wikipedia is not the Lonely Planet. Ajf773 (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly not an encyclopaedia article Spiderone 12:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tourism in Gujarat. This could be cleaned up and properly sourced like many other tourism in city articles, but redirect for now.Charles (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is relisted to gain a clearer consensus on whether the close should be a delete or a redirect, as those are the two current options. Other opinions are welcome as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 18:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the nominator - this AfD has been relisted enough times now. I give preference to redirect as per User:Charlesdrakew. If the article is ever recreated it can also be nominated again in another AfD should the content continue to be non-compliant. Ajf773 (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 27 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.

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 merge to Club Med#Villages. Sandstein 08:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Club Med villages

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

Fails WP:NOTDIR and none of the list entries are notable in their own right. Promotional only article at best Ajf773 (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Club Med#Villages and remove the promotional writing in that section, along with the 'tridents' which seem to be a non-neutral ratings system. At least someone did the work to compile the resorts, but an article breakout isn't justified here. Nate • (chatter) 22:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing worth merging. What you might be proposing is to redirect? I agree the Club Med#Villages section needs a good cleanup as does the rest of the article. Ajf773 (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The company's properties are listed in this article. I propose that the poor quality text in the section mentioned is replaced with the information here; comprehensive and easily sourced. Nate • (chatter) 07:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia is not a directory. Ajf773 (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue the information is presented better here than in the article as-is; this is a common list presentation for travel articles of this type which doesn't violate NOTDIR in the least. Nate • (chatter) 20:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Club Med#Villages - agree with @Mrschimpf:. Merge and remove the promotional writing and the rating system. Definitely does not deserve it's own article, but the list itself, without the advert nature, could be useful in the main article. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:37, 24 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.

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. Mz7 (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sunway Group subsidiaries

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

Article exists solely as a stand alone directory of non notable companies. Fails WP:LISTN Ajf773 (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, specifically #7: "Simple listings without context information. ...subdivisions..." Clarityfiend (talk) 06:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable subsidiaries. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just go to their web site! At best this would be an out-of-date mirror. W Nowicki (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NOTDIR Spiderone 22:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:28, 13 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.

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 keep. Consensus that additions by Fiachra10003 establish notability. (non-admin closure) J 947 21:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Apparel Industries, Inc.

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

PROD contested by TonyTheTiger. My PROD reasoning was as follows: "lots of mentions in Wall Street Journal archives, but almost all are routine reports of earnings, losses, or personnel changes. no in-depth profiles or features. nothing to indicate they were a central leader in the field. checked for book mentions & got one trivial mention in a book about the history of the bra. again no in-depth coverage." ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a number of citations from the New York Times and Chicago Tribune meeting WP:SECONDARY. Based on these, there's almost certainly more to add from the regional business press of the late 1920s and early 1930s once anyone cares to research these. This article needs fleshing out as a tale of the managerial capitalism of the late 1920s and early 1930s, not deleting. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG, article reflects this thanks to Fiachra10003. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Nice historical piece. I'll see if I can come up with an illustration, that will make life happier for all and won't take too many minutes out of my day. Carrite (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, my newspapers.com subscription just expired, so never mind... Carrite (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:05, 10 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.

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 keep. Meets NBOOK, as shown by Lourdes. (non-admin closure) J 947 01:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Invisible Edge

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

Non-notable book. The only sources are reviews on IP Watchdog (a blog); in Automation World (an industry-specific publication); and a passing mention in an otherwise unrelated press release.

This book and its authors Mark Blaxill and Ralph Eckardt have a history of using Wikipedia for promotional purposes; each of their articles, and the article on the book, have been deleted multiple times: two speedies (log) for the book; a speedie (log) and one AFD (here) for Blaxill; and two AFDs (here and again after re-creation here) for Eckardt.

This re-creation a week ago seems to be the latest attempt at WikiPromotion. The article was created by WP:SPA editor GalaxyK1D (talk · contribs), whose sole contribution has been to create this article. It's not clear to me whether this editor is the same individual as Kwenkbodenmiller (talk · contribs), who was responsible for the prior now-deleted articles, or merely their successor. TJRC (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I could find one good review in Strategy+Business.[3] While Harvard Business School's review is trivial and not independent,[4] the review in ipwatchdog.com[5] is quite acceptable. IPwatchdog.com is a hall of fame inductee in the American Bar Association's top 100 blogs, so can't be discredited. These two reviews allow the book to qualify under WP:NBOOK, which requires two reviews only for a book to be considered notable. Additionally, the book is a suggested reading in courses at Stanford University[6], Aston University,[7] Chalmers School of Entrepreneurship[8] etc. This too makes the book qualify under WP:NBOOK, under the university reading criterion. Also, this book is cited multiple times by researchers.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Lourdes 14:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it has also been reviewed by Financial Executive [17] Coolabahapple (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:27, 18 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.

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hallspot

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

Company fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. There are a few references, but none of them add up to notability. The Register Guard is in-depth but the only other in-depth I found was from Portland Business Journal and it reads like a press release. Everything else is minor, local, interview, or from an unreliable source. CNMall41 (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NCORP. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:59, 10 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.

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) 06:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gel Wipe

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

This article appears to be about a specific product from one company. There is one reference to an industry magazine article. In looking for other coverage, I can only find ads selling this stuff, but not any more coverage about the product that would establish notability. Whpq (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 11:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 11:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 territory, and manages to be promotional to boot. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd say redirect to SATU Laboratory, but the company's not even notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:16, 16 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.

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) 00:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sensis Agency

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

Fails WP:ORG. I am unable to find anything in-depth. I was initially going to strip out the promotional wording and lists of awards and clients but there wouldn't be much left. As it stands, there is nothing I can find to show notability. CNMall41 (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Wikipedia is not WP:WEBHOST for promotional materials that belong on the company's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 14:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ORG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:47, 10 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.

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) 00:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Universal

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Promotional tone as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as G11 actually applied because it's not only clear campaigning but a second mirrored attempt at it. SwisterTwister talk 18:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:00, 10 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.

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. czar 17:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emerging Kerala (Magazine)

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

WP:NOTABILITY. This is a hype-laden article missing sourced notability; the only listed source that actually mentions the magazine is an event listing. Googling for "Emerging Kerala" magazine, I'm not finding significant sources (most of the gnews results are for an investor summit that had the same name.) Nat Gertler (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:A7. I removed unsourced promotional puffery and a paragraph that was totally unrelated to the magazine. What remains has no evidence of notability and makes no assertion of significance. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find any secondary sources about the magazine. It is unclear if this magazine has a wide circulation. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:27, 12 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.

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 evidence of notability, via significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, has been presented during this discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LiveAuctioneers

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

A fourteen-year-old company (according to the article) which has only managed to amass passing mentions and a short Huffington Post article. Calton | Talk 01:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 03:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: May only be a stub, but it appears to pass WP:GNG. –Matthew - (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does it "appear to pass WP:GNG"? There are no references provided that meet the criteria in WP:RS. Passing references to things that have been auctioned using this company are not sufficient and passing references or inclusions in lists are likewise not accepted as references for the purposes of establishing notability. Have you discovered other references? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References do not meet WP:RS and therefore notability has not been established. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I would recommend for the closing admin to close this as a 'delete'. This is one of the final two discussions listed at WP:OLD. J 947 21:46, 10 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.