Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess ICT

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Chess ICT}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chess_ICT Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Chess ICT}})

Doesn't pass WP:ORGCRIT and has no substantial coverage in WP:RS and WP:IS as PRoDded earlier [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chess_ICT&oldid=915726663 here] by User:Rosguill, but was deprodded by the author without any substantial change ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chess_ICT&oldid=916020182 rev]). Article is full of PR links in wiki and on the web, and the only thing that author is claiming as significant for notability (1st rank in Top 100 Best Companies to Work For) doesn't really qualify to have an article on its own as it is a one-time thing (the current rank is 12) and is only valid within UK. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per not meeting WP:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Delete does not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH (all the sources are routine business announcements) or WP:GNG. Its only claim to fame is "1st place in The Sunday Times Best Companies to Work For" which is not enough for an article. A quick Google search doesn't help. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.