Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certipost


 * 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   merge to Belgian Post Group. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Certipost

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Did a news search, and nothing but but press releases and trivial mentions Hu12 (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Delete Fails WP:N with no independent reliable sources. --Artene50 (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * merge to    Belgian Post Group, of which it is a subsidiary. Not really appropriate for a separate article, but no argument is given against including some information in the main article. . DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Belgian Post Group.  Material is appearing in books, and there is more material in Google News archive.  Bloomberg's investing.businessweek.com is IMO an especially reliable source, and reports on this topic  here.  This article provides in-depth analysis of one of the company's products and also gives independent non-trivial attention to the company.  However the current article is not useful as a standalone article.  No prejudice to recreation of the standalone article when there is enough encyclopedic material to warrant a standalone article.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2012 (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.