- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 09:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Shaw Mudge & Company (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)
Excruciatingly detailed history of a company which does not appear to have achieved any significant notability. Extensive citations give a false sense of notability, but most "citations" simply link to the website of a mentioned company, but do not actually verify any information in the article. Searches for actual information about the company turn up the standard business directory listings, and little else. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article has been extensively rewritten since nomination. It now describes a company with little to differentiate it from every other company in the world. Extensive citations are mostly to archived copies of the company's own website, or their advertisements in publications. Some valid references, but not enough to indicate real notability. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Neither the article nor any of the references tell us why we should care about this company in any way. It doesn't even look like it's been written by a competent publicist, as there's not even an attempt to address notability. It almost looks like it's just a small company where someone has said "we should get ourselves listed on Wikipedia". We're not Yellow Pages, though. If there is a later claim of notability, it'll be easy to re-create this article, but right now it doesn't belong here. RomanSpa (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 06:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can find only routine announcements about this company, predominantly around its 2006 sale. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:22, 14 April 2014 (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.