Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closed 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Closed company

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is basically a dictionary definition. It is currently unsourced, and it is hard to see how it could ever be a proper article, or even a stub. It does not fit any of the speedy deletion criteria that I can see. Delete as per "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  19:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  19:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. --Hirsutism (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, not a dictionary. Also "closed company" can mean many things in many legal contexts across the world, so the article falls short of a serious portrayal of what constitutes a "closed company". pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 13:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDICT: also, regarding what JB touches on above; a 'merge' would have been a possible !vote, but there are so many way and forms in which a company can close, that the possibilities for the target redirect are legion, and thus inapplicable. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  14:10, 29 June 2017 (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.