Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglian Medal Hunt Company


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Anglian Medal Hunt Company

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, as per source searches. North America1000 02:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: The article text is riddled with peacockery perhaps appropriate for a company marketing brochure but not an encyclopaedia. Parts of it (in the "Facilities" section) are copied from a bylined source. If the article were to survive AfD, radical surgery would be needed on both counts. The many references about the competitive achievements of athletes in whom the firm has an interest are not appropriate: company notability is not inherited. Trying to disentangle the sources which are about the firm, several are similar announcement pieces from start-up; the most substantial is probably the 2014 LiveMint item, but I feel that is merely describing a company going about its business. Overall, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete/Purely promotional intent, and that is enough reason for deletion, even with the dubious notability. Our only real defense against advertising is to remove the article, and the onlu problem here is that we should have done that in 2013, when the first of several SPAs started it. We didn't have all the rules on undeclared paid editing then, but we did have our COI policy, which has always been strong enough to delete material like this.  DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above, fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Promotional fails WP:CORPDEPTH.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2017 (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.