Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur colquhoun


 * 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   no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Arthur colquhoun

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No evidence of notability for this company, although some notability is claimed. Prod removed by IP without explanation. Delete. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:CORP. no evidence of indepth coverage . LibStar (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I picked up some hits in GNews from 1928, when this company was set up. It's far from enough to establish notability as it stands, but it's possible that if someone looks through paper books this company might have some historical notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete No reliable sources to confirm these assertions to notability in the article (oldest company, etc.)--Chaser (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I added several reliable sources in the form of inline citations and ext. links. In 2002, the company has been listed among 100 UK's fastest-growing businesses. However, I'm unsure if this is sufficient for an article here. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing to weak keep with added cites/links. I think this piece in The Herald is enough, combined with it's presence in the top 100 list, to make it notable. Plus, it's been around a long time and is probably an important historical part of its community. That's not ordinarily part of notability, but I think in this borderline case it's appropriate to take it into account.--Chaser (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2010 (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.