Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boudicca Proxy Consultants


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 20:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Boudicca Proxy Consultants

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No real demonstration of notability. Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Edwardx (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 16:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 16:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 16:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - "Boudicca Proxy Consultants" is a notable proxy solicitation company. References are reliable and good.SDRaR111 (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: SDRaR111 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
 * Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH & significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - My opinion goes with SDRaR111 as "Boudicca Proxy Consultants" is notable for its several mentions in www.thetimes.co.uk. The linkedin link should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wedlock143 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)  — Wedlock143 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  Point of Order - SDRaR111 and Wedlock143, AFD is not a vote so please don't treat it as such. It's also suspicious when users with few edits (or their first edit) seem to be attracted to the same AFD. Killiondude (talk) 06:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination and per User:K.e.coffman above. I can only find passing mentions of the company in WP:RS online. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom - no notability. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:48, 2 April 2018 (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.