Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephens Scown

: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. Cirt (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[Stephens Scown]]=

:{{la|Stephens Scown}} ([{{fullurl:Stephens Scown|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephens Scown}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Non notable solicitor, no references or reliable sources are found in this article. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 16:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:*This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete There is now one reference in the article, backing up the claim regarding Dragons Den (I have not investigated any details regarding the source though), however this doesn't make them notable imo. The claim that they have a "national reputation in the industry" regarding their mines and minerals work remains uncited as of the timestamp of this comment. If it is verifiable I might reconsider my opinion, but I don't think that on its own is likely to swing it for me - after all I suspect there are many regional firms of soliciters with similar natational reputations in the industry. Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete — I tagged this article with {{tl|Db-inc}} shortly after it was created … pure weapons-grade Vanispamcruftisement … Happy Editing! — {{#if:141.156.165.77|{{User|141.156.165.77}}|141.156.165.77 (talk)}} 17:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. One article in a local paper is far from enough. Suspect promotional piece masquerading as encyclopaedia article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2009 (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.