- 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. Jenks24 ( talk) 10:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Kreativ ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Anup [Talk] 11:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 11:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 12:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 12:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly comes no where near meeting WP:CORP or WP:GNG written like an advert, could have been speedy deleted. Theroadislong ( talk) 12:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete advert for unnotable co. . . Mean as custard ( talk) 14:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Subject does not meet notability guidelines and page reads like an advertisement. Meatsgains ( talk) 15:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Having reviewed and refined the offered references, many of which were primary or mere registration listings, and none of which support the superlative assertions in the text, the most substantial that I am seeing is the Newgen Issuu page, which is about the founder rather than the firm, and about him as a member of the publishing organisation. Nothing indicates more than a run-of-the-mill company going about its business. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG - and probably meets WP:CSD#G11 given the promotional claims. AllyD ( talk) 15:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and I would've honestly explored speedy and PROD, nothing minimally convincing from a still hinted advertorial article that is still not satisfying notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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 delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 10:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Kreativ ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Anup [Talk] 11:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 11:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 12:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 12:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly comes no where near meeting WP:CORP or WP:GNG written like an advert, could have been speedy deleted. Theroadislong ( talk) 12:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete advert for unnotable co. . . Mean as custard ( talk) 14:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Subject does not meet notability guidelines and page reads like an advertisement. Meatsgains ( talk) 15:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Having reviewed and refined the offered references, many of which were primary or mere registration listings, and none of which support the superlative assertions in the text, the most substantial that I am seeing is the Newgen Issuu page, which is about the founder rather than the firm, and about him as a member of the publishing organisation. Nothing indicates more than a run-of-the-mill company going about its business. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG - and probably meets WP:CSD#G11 given the promotional claims. AllyD ( talk) 15:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and I would've honestly explored speedy and PROD, nothing minimally convincing from a still hinted advertorial article that is still not satisfying notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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.