Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic Marble Company


 * 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. Killiondude (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Classic Marble Company

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This company received some coverage in independent sources (i am not sure if they are reliable as well) but clearly fails per CORPDEPTH. Saqib (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 10:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 10:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not notable. Before I can get to reasoning of failing CORPDEPTH I would have to get past multiple "What Wikipedia is not" violations. Certainly not a directory or yellow page business advertising agent. This is just a business of which there are "millions" so there is nothing "worthy of notice" to the world at large. The article and a source advertises "Kalinga Stone flooring products". Just read the unsourced "Other Achievements" section for evidence of promoting. I guess for advertising engineered marble and quartz (US name) does sound better than "agglomerated", "reconstituted" or "compressed" stone. A company with he same name was formed in the United Arab Emirates in 1993. Lacking some clear notability as ascertained by multiple independant sources, that are not primary sources, press releases or industry related reporting, we will be jumping on the slippery slope of enticing the gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals and Wikipedia will have to succumb to being an advertising agent as well as changing policies and guidelines. Otr500 (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with Otr500 above. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP, references fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND  HighKing++ 13:32, 19 April 2018 (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.