Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Dragon (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. Not quite a soft delete since there's a consensus without opposition. I'm willing to undelete if significant reliable sources (better than what was already in the article) are located. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Green Dragon (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Procedural nomination to get broader input so I abstain. I've declined a WP:G11 request on this as I don't consider it promotional and it looks like the author has at least made some attempt to source it to something other than press releases. However, I don't think this company appears likely to reach Wikipedia's notability standards; Wikipedia isn't a directory and we only cover companies that have independent notability in some way, and I'm not seeing that here. The Colorado cannabis market is something about which I know very little and it's possible I just don't know where to look, so I'm neutral on the potential that this is a legitimate topic. &#8209; Iridescent 07:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak delete I think this is borderline, from whichever side of the fence one looks at it. What the referencing lacks in quality, it tries to make up in quantity, including reusing the same sources multiple times (looks more impressive, I guess, than using named refs); most of the sources are either weak, or don't mention the company in question, but that said there are one or two that are okay. Also the whole piece is rather promotional in nature, with possible COI editing behind it — and even then, it hardly impresses me with the noteworthiness of the company in question. Adding up all that, I fell on the delete side of the fence, but only just. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete As per DGrazing. Pilean (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2021 (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.