Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lordco - Wikipedia

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 Speedy delete as copyvio. Stifle (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lordco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A speedy tag and PROD tag were both removed without improvement. This article has no reliable sources and dubious notability, and strong overtones of advertising. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative Weak Delete. It's hard to believe that this chain isn't notable within British Columbia, but I've only found this and this, which wouldn't quite get them over the WP:BUSINESS hump. But surely there's more out there, and a better researcher than me would change my !vote. THF (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Keep Delete as stated above probably notable in Canada and as stated those are the only 2 links found within google news §hawnpoo 02:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I nominated the article, and I live in British Columbia. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete dubious notability. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The "History" section about the subject just included events before 1997. If nothing else about the current status of this company can be found, then delete it. Alexius08 (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Probably large enough to be notability. one of the well established principles here is that notability is permanent,and if there are sufficient sources to show it for the 90s, that's good enough. DGG (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No notability is proven through reliable sources.--Sloane (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of WP:CORP notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to the lack of citations from reliable sources, which are required by the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete This is a copyvio, also the first edit[1] came with it's own notability tag. I think they may be a fine company but there is a lot of digging needed to find sources per WP:CSB. No prejudice towards recreation. -- Banjeboi 11:21, 10 March 2009 (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.