Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business Culture Index


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Business Culture Index

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

fails WP:GNG, with little or no significant coverage. Ironholds (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. A regular survey of any standing would surely get regular attention in the papers every year the results are release. I found one hit in GNews. Incidentally, it appears that User:Buddenr is creating pages for lots of different surveys managed by Target Group Index (two so far, the other one being Football fans index). There's no reason why these couldn't be mentioned on TGI's page (assuming TGI itself passes notability), but publicising every survey they do is a tad spammy for my liking. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake   Wartenberg  02:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - The article was originally just coatracking for Target Group Index; I've deleted the offending content, which leaves an article that does not pass WP:N, as it fails to establish the notability of the subject matter (and also contains no independent sources). - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete If nobody defends this stuff in the first 7 or 14 days why bother relisting it again? Miami33139 (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.  Chzz  ►  09:21, 29 September 2009 (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.