Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congrex


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Congrex

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Bringing this to AfD after declining a CSD request as the reason given was not appropriate. I feel the article fails to show notability, and the two references are not reliable independent sources. Peridon (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The CSD request had the following reason: "because first and foremost; the information is not accurate (anymore). In combination with the 'notability' 'orphan' and 'trustworthy sources' issues we think it is better to have it removed all together as we will not be able to meet the criteria to counter the 'issues'. Regards, a representative from Congrex." This was posted by an IP apparently in the Netherlands. Peridon (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Aside from news releases about events, appointments and merges, I am not finding anything substantial on the firm itself. One possibility was this item in a prior version of the article, but it doesn't make substantive claims about the company's role in that award. Overall, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:28, 22 January 2013 (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.