Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De Joya Griffith and 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. Consensus is clear, and approaching WP:SNOW. BD2412 T 03:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

De Joya Griffith and Company

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A promotional article for a small, defunct accountancy company. The article is referenced only by press releases, derivative churnalism thereof, and ultra-low-value listicles. I can find no substantial independent coverage it at all (WP:ORGCRITE). The only somewhat notable thing I can find out about the company is it, and its principals, being punished by the SEC (but that's a primary source, and the affair does not appear to have engendered much in the way of coverage either). Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 20:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 20:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 20:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 20:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 9.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 21:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete WP:G11 BrigadierG (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete - Nothing, I mean nothing, I can find comes close to WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOTADVERT This was originally written in 2011 as "... is an American CPA firm" as online advertising for the firm. It appears to have gone out of business in 2015. — Maile  (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - Has nothing going for it in any way, shape of form. Nowhere near satisfyin notability. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: I couldn't find any credible sources that discuss the topic of this article in a substantial way. Deletion might be the best course of action at this time.  Waqar 💬 17:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2024 (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.