Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commercial Capital Training Group


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 12:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Commercial Capital Training Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unremarkable company fails the criteria in WP:ORG the links provided especially Forbes are churnalisme. Rapid growth is not a criterion for notability. Domdeparis (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep : Articles from Forbes, Bloomberg News , Inc. (magazine) etc proves the notablity for companies and passed WP:ORG. The user is continuously tagging my pages unnecessarily Godisthebestone (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Hi Godisthebestone I have tagged one other page Luca A Longobardi as not being notable and as your replies might suggest a WP:COI problem I had a look at the other pages that you have edited to see if you are a WP:SPA which does not seem to be the case but as this page didn't seem to meet the criteria of WP:GNG I tagged it. Just as a reminder the pages are not "your" pages please read WP:YDOW for more information. --Domdeparis (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as said sources are clear published and republished advertising, regardless of who put it, because that's what the intentions and actions still are, and WP:NOT in fact applies here because of the sheer blatancy. It's clear all of this is part of an advertising campaign and attempting to mistake it as otherwise is damaging ourselves. SwisterTwister   talk  05:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I have referred other similar articles and used similar style to create this article . So how this becomes an advertisment. I cant understand your mindset, Why you always wants to put pages down ? I am dropping myself from any further article writing in wiki just cause of you people. Godisthebestone (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi you're very welcome to stay on Wikipedia and create and edit pages but you seem to be overly attached to the pages that you have created which suggest that you may have a conflict of interest.  Try editing and creating pages that you are interested in but you don't have a vested interest in.  You will take the comments of others much less personally and will become a valued member of the Wikipedia community.  Domdeparis (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- no indications of notability or significance; close to A7. The founder's article is also at AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2016 (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.