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.
Missvain (
talk) 23:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:NCORP - sources don't allow to establish independent notability - routine business news merely prove that the company exists. —
kashmīrīTALK 18:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep I don't see
[1],
[2],
[3] or
[4] as "routine business news merely prov[ing] that the company exists" and, moreover, I think
WP:NCORP is met.
Thincat (
talk) 08:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)reply
The first link is a blatant advertisement, the next two are informercials – articles routinely created by the company's PR staff or PR agency. The 4th link is routine business news (takeover announcement). None offers
WP:INDEPENDENT,
WP:INDEPTH coverage. Phrases like "The biggest employer in Peterhead" may appear impressive, if not for the fact that
Peterhead is a fishing town of barely 20,000 people. Delete. —
kashmīrīTALK 09:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete The company seems to be a specialized in some kind of engineering works. But it definitely does not meet to be an encyclopedic content. Does not pass
WP:ORG.
nirmal (
talk) 07:03, 7 June 2021 (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.