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 no consensus. Requires separate discussions. We can't establish consensus for these topics as a group here. Sandstein 19:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)reply
There's simply nothing to suggest better improvement to any of these and with Alexander Autographs, all current news links are passing and minor mentions and although its items may be admirable and interesting there's no better coverage of Alexander Autographs themselves. I'm pinging involved users
C.Fred and
Gyrofrog (Alexander Autographs),
Trivialist,
Jayron32 and
Eastmain and
Cornellrockey (ORS Direct) and author
Gary (Current Communications Group)
SwisterTwistertalk 06:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
KeepESR Technology which I suspect to be a significant participant in the British nuclear industry. Delete the rest, which look thoroughly NN. I think we should deplore multiple nominations of unrelated subjects.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 22:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Peterkingiron I favored this rather than making several nominations that would risk "no consensus" to no attention at all, although not explicitly related, I consider these to be unimprovable (and FWIW, it gives a chance for the viewer to look at other company noms). I tried to make this nomination as simple as possible. Also, suspicion of being a significant participant may be good but it will not improve the article's current state.
SwisterTwistertalk 01:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: As far as I can tell there's no good connection between these four companies, so why
WP:BUNDLE,
SwisterTwister? This to me looks pretty much as
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Dial that
DGG closed on the note "as a technical no-consensus, because its impossible to try to form a proper consensus about 5 disparate people in one nomination. Please renominate separately." --
Sam SailorTalk! 03:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
☮JAaron95Talk 08:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - I have to agree that this should be separated. To nominate in a group like this makes the arguments inconclusive. -
Pmedema (
talk) 13:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
☮JAaron95Talk 15:43, 6 October 2015 (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.
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 no consensus. Requires separate discussions. We can't establish consensus for these topics as a group here. Sandstein 19:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)reply
There's simply nothing to suggest better improvement to any of these and with Alexander Autographs, all current news links are passing and minor mentions and although its items may be admirable and interesting there's no better coverage of Alexander Autographs themselves. I'm pinging involved users
C.Fred and
Gyrofrog (Alexander Autographs),
Trivialist,
Jayron32 and
Eastmain and
Cornellrockey (ORS Direct) and author
Gary (Current Communications Group)
SwisterTwistertalk 06:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
KeepESR Technology which I suspect to be a significant participant in the British nuclear industry. Delete the rest, which look thoroughly NN. I think we should deplore multiple nominations of unrelated subjects.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 22:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Peterkingiron I favored this rather than making several nominations that would risk "no consensus" to no attention at all, although not explicitly related, I consider these to be unimprovable (and FWIW, it gives a chance for the viewer to look at other company noms). I tried to make this nomination as simple as possible. Also, suspicion of being a significant participant may be good but it will not improve the article's current state.
SwisterTwistertalk 01:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: As far as I can tell there's no good connection between these four companies, so why
WP:BUNDLE,
SwisterTwister? This to me looks pretty much as
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Dial that
DGG closed on the note "as a technical no-consensus, because its impossible to try to form a proper consensus about 5 disparate people in one nomination. Please renominate separately." --
Sam SailorTalk! 03:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
☮JAaron95Talk 08:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - I have to agree that this should be separated. To nominate in a group like this makes the arguments inconclusive. -
Pmedema (
talk) 13:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
☮JAaron95Talk 15:43, 6 October 2015 (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.