Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Callard, Madden & Associates


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Callard, Madden & Associates
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unreferenced since September 2006. A prod was contested in June 2009 by User:ThaddeusB with reason " will properly source article ASAP". No source was given till now. Magioladitis (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. We can't wait forever. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - being unsourced is NOT a valid reason for deletion. As it so happens, I have been much less active on Wikipedia and am just starting to become active again now - however my activity is not relevant.  The notability (or lack there of) is the only valid criteria.  A quick Gnews or GBooks search will quickly reveal that the company is notable for their market research work.  Further sources can be found by searching for the company's other names: Callard Research and Ativo research --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unsourced. "It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." - Jimbo Wales Dlabtot (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep if sources are available, as they seem to be, it can be sourced. note Jimbo's wording: unless it can be sourced.   And read the entire email--none of this is negative information about living people.    DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The claim that "sources are available" wears a little thin when the article has lacked sources for a period approaching 3½ years. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't believe it passes WP:ORG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete lacks reliable sources, claims are not notable RadioFan (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. A search of the primary article name and purported alternate company nameplates doesn't reveal any articles in any reliable sources. It doesn't appear to be a matter of waiting for someone to add references, but rather whether any significant ones exist. Transmissionelement (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2010 (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.