Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benecaid


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 17:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Benecaid

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I decided I mighte have a crack at cleaning up this rather non-neutral article - however, on seraching for sources, I came to the conclusion that Benecaid probably doesn't meet WP:CORP. Sources available are either listings or press releases; as yet I've found no significant coverage in reliable sources. Yunshui 雲 水 13:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as stands Given the recent editing by an obviously COI SPA, I would think there is a promotional aspect to the article. To me, this looks like one of those out of the public eye businesses (and areas) that don't attract notice until something goes pear-shaped. Peridon (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: for reasons pointed out; also does not meet WP:CORP. Quis separabit?  15:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:CORP guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No claim of notability and none found. It's just a company that exists. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:CORP/WP:GNG failure. Companies are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, if reliable source coverage isn't there to confer actual notability — we're an encyclopedia, not a business marketing directory. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2014 (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.