Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perr&Knight (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Perr&Knight}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Perr%26Knight_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Perr&Knight}})

an earlier version of this was deleted--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perr&Knight.

There is no more notability now than there was then. There are no actual references to the company--just to a very few citations of their reports.

The paragraph to the winery should not be here, even if it is more than borderline notable. The firm does not own the winery. The two individuals do. DGG ( talk ) 14:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• Delete -- just a promo blurb on an unremarkable private company. The article on the winery is also highly promotional & created by the same SPA account. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - even if it met WP:GNG, which it doesn't, it is simply a promotional brochure at this point. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:48, 18 June 2017 (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.