Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominion Training Services


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Dominion Training Services

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article/sources do not establish notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:ORG.

Disputed WP:PROD: Non notable training establishment that fails WP:ORG. Meph talk 16:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —  Meph talk 17:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree, no evidence of notability, in fact I initially thought this was SD material, changed to a PROD and within minutes we are here! Fails WP:ORG. Paste  Let’s have a chat. 17:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Further references added to article. The user that made the initial suggestion for deletion has authored articles with fewer references that remain on the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossevans11 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not relevant—This discussion is to determine whether the subject, Dominion Training Services, is sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia. Any apparent issues in other articles are not relevant to the adherence to this policy. Meph talk 17:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

So expecting policy to be applied with consistency is 'not relevant'?


 * I nominated this article for deletion as a non-notable subject, and Paste's edits are not relevant to determining whether my nomination is valid. Meph talk 18:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. In particular, I don't see any way this meet WP:ORG which is the more specific guideline for companies.  Any issues with other article is a separate issue and not relevant to why this article should be included in Wikipedia.  If the other articles failt he inclusion criteria, they should also be nominated for deletion so long as it isn't to just make a point. - Whpq (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks like it clearly fails WP:ORG. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2011 (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.