Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Seniors Insurance Agency


 * 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) 05:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

British Seniors Insurance Agency

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

promotional and non-notable. The refs are not what they seem: they just discuss general problems, and just mention the company, or they are disguised advertorials using the company as a source.  DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete per nom, promotional and the sources are problematic as noted - David Gerard (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: An article on an insurance agency sourced only to routine coverage of the financial results of a firm with whom they have a relationship, and which does not mention the subject of the article. As to the firm itself, there is some press coverage, predominantly in January 2016 relating to the announcement of their Over-50s product, but I am not seeing anything to demonstrate WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: While I've found some RS, it doesn't seem to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. The best I could find was this and this, which is basically about routine product announcements, and which doesn't include enough information to build an encyclopedic article on. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2016 (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.