Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C&A Industries, 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   speedy delete (WP:CSD: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) by

C&A Industries, Inc

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

First of all, I was somewhat reluctant as to some, #95 of Inc. and 58th largest firm in the US, may be significant but what prompted to me to this AfD was there's nothing else aside from that; not to mention I doubt many people would miss this article as it also hasn't been edited in quite a while (mostly maintenance and such). My searches (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing aside from this and this. NOTE: Please also see Articles for deletion/C&A Industries which was followed after multiple versions were deleted and eventually protected so this article with "Inc" was started. As always, I could've PRODded this but I like to accompany a nomination with weight from other users (given the age, I highly doubt salt is necessary (simply delete and sweep under the rug) unless there are plans of recreation, to which I'd said "use WP:AFC instead). As you're the most active users from the original, feel free to comment.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and probably Speedy Delete (WP:CSD) but I have no access to the deleted material to know if it is substantially the same. Since the article was created within 1 month of the prior AFD closing and has not been substantially updated since the, I'd guess that the material is not significantly different that what was previously deleted at the first AFD. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete The awards are trivial rankings that do not establish notability or warrant inclusion. WP:ORGAWARDS has more on my opinion about awards/rankings like these. There are no real legitimate sources on the page, nor were there originally. I really think we should put the burden of establishing notability on the article creator, especially when there is an obvious COI, rather than our response to spam being to create an article for them. CorporateM (Talk) 22:09, 12 July 2015 (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.