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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

TraderMade

TraderMade (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Rightly or wrongly, I declined a G11 speedy deletion nomination for this. I believe that after seven years here it merits a full discussion of whether or not it is notable under our guidelines for companies. It's a blatant COI/ UPE creation. It gets a handful of hits on Gnews, and about five verifiable results on Gbooks. I don't see any in-depth coverage of the company; the two Investors Chronicle pages used as references don't load for me and appear not to be accessible through archive.org. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 17:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Definitely an ad, and no real reliable sources to write with. Citing ( talk) 02:25, 25 April 2019 (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.