Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edgeworth Economics


 * 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 09:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Edgeworth Economics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

promotional article for firm with very minor awards. What might look like the one reliable source is just the announcement of a  "readers choice" award. Such awards are not reason for notability  DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 15:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete There are 149 hits on Newsbank. Once the press releases are eliminated, we are left with only passing mentions, e.g. quotes from someone who works there and they mention that they work there.  The one exception has to do with a study the company did for the NFL in Summer 2013 which got a ton of coverage, but again, the company is not discussed in these articles.  The articles mention that the company did the study, but the articles are only about the study, not the company.  No mentions in the scholarly literature or gbooks.  Thus it fails not only the GNG but WP:ORG as well.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * delete complete lack of third party sources. LibStar (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2014 (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.