Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gleeds


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  11:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Gleeds

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

Non-notable consulting company. The only sources appear to be trade publications, and all of the reporting appears to be run-of-the-mill. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  04:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  10:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, United Kingdom,  and England. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  07:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Would expect to find more sources but there's just not a lot out there. Lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Article in present state is overly promotional and unencyclopedic with listing of office locations etc. AusLondonder (talk) 00:02, 19 February 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.