Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burke, Inc.


 * 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. Nakon 19:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Burke, Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no credible indication of significance, though another editor thought there was. There's an award from some completely unknown source with improbable multiple prizes for a single year, and a promotional local reference from a series apparently highlighting local companies in succession. One of the many articles from a just detected ring ok sock-puppets,. articles from such sources should not be given the benefit of the doubt.  DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. Adam9007 (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1 is about toilet paper,mentioning the company only as the author of a report; #2 is a straightforward press release about the promotion of an executive #3 ; is another press release ; #4 is again just a mention as the author of a report;  #5 is a "best places to work award"--an award type intended for promotion & which should always be regarded as such; always promotional ;  #6 is the same topic as no 4, reprinted in another source;  #7 is the same best place to work promotionalism  ; #8  ditto ; #9 was apparently written by the company--they seem to have actually signedit at the bottom ; #10 is am ere notice they bought a building from a real estate publication that includes the sale of every commercial building in its area ; #11, the author of a survey, mentioned incidentally ; #12 ditto ; #13 the same study as no.11 ; #14, repeat of another study ; #15 diito ; #16 ditto. Not a single one of these is an independent non-indiscriminate reliable source for notability about the company.  DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as I've been examining all of this and these are simply thin attempts to inflate an article that has no actual convincing information or anything convincing frankly. The speedy tag remover should've himself at least attempted some form of deletion judging from the current article....and the listed sources, again, are not actually convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  06:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. for (talk)  16:01, 1 July 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.