- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- Intro Crowd (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)
Heavily promotional page about an unremarkable organisation, with no reliable sources demonstrating that it has significance. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete- Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Of the few available sources, some do not seem to be independent[1], and others look like press release coverage.- MrX 12:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete no reliable sources report to establish notability and this article is largely to promote this company. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- 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.