Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wooden Street
: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.
=[[:Wooden Street]]=
:{{la|1=Wooden Street}} – (
:({{Find sources AFD|title=Wooden Street}})
Sources aren't sufficient for WP:NCORP. The Entrepreneur article, while long, quotes the founders exclusively and has independence issues. Hemantha (talk) 07:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hemantha (talk) 07:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hemantha (talk) 07:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
:
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Honestly, given that Forbes, Entrepreneur and other publications otherwise historically considered reputable have been called out for running paid pieces for promo for companies and individuals, I have a suspicion 99% of the sources are that. I am not definitely saying for sure, but I absolutely side with the independence concerns of Hemantha. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 14:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability as per NCORP. HighKing++ 20:12, 28 March 2022 (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.