Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CNA Financial Corporation


 * 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 keep. Daniel.Bryant 01:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

CNA Financial Corporation
Reads like spam, cites no sources, doesn't seem to be notable, author refuses attempts to verify notability--205.188.116.66 20:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also a clear copywrite violation --205.188.116.66 20:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Huge company. I added links to Hoover's and Yahoo! Finance as references. A company with 2005 revenues of $9862 million is probably notable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. A previous article under this name was deleted at 18:02, 13 July 2005 by UtherSRG (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves ] &bull; block user &bull; [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log ]) . The anon who began this AfD is an AOL user. See 205.188.116.66 (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves ] &bull; block user &bull; [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log ]) . --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment2 the RU who made the previous signend comment is User:TruthbringerToronto (talk • contribs), I point this out because apparently we must all point out things that are obvious from our signatures--152.163.100.6 21:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep easily meets Notability (companies and corporations). Tom Harrison Talk 21:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * yes, and when I nominated it, it was a one sentence copyvio--152.163.100.6 21:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing has been stolen from other websites all that I have written about is from first hand knowledge. bobsmith319.
 * Please stop reinserting the same copywrite violation, wikipedia is not a game, you don't "win" by reinserting a copywrite violation when no one is looking--152.163.100.6 21:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Obvious Keep Bejnar 04:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, and the way to handle copyright violations is WP:CV, or better yet simply delete and/or rewrite the offending material. The company, however, is unequivocally notable. Anon, you should review the guide to deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 06:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. This company is about as non-notable as FedEx or Microsoft.  --Dennisthe2 17:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep it This is a valid corporate page. -- SunSw0rd 16:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep, totally malformed nomination. RFerreira 23:05, 28 September 2006 (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.