Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITNAmerica


 * 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 no consensus. I want to note that at 13:49, 28 July 2015‎ (UTC), the AfD template on the article was removed by an anonymous editor and wasn't restored until 02:31, 1 August 2015‎. Since this discussion has already been open for three weeks with very little participation and, as a result, no consensus, I can't see how keeping this open a little bit longer would help. However, that being said, due to low participation, there is also no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

ITNAmerica

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

One of a pair of promotional articles. (The other is for the foudner). Writing two articles for a subject of very borderline notability at best is a basically promotional technique. I tried removing some of the tabloid material and inappropriate listings of boards of directors and of links to each individual branch, but there's nothing much left. Single purpose editor, with presumed conflict of interest.  DGG ( talk ) 15:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep and stub A quick Google News search reveals plenty of sources. Operations in 15 states suggest it is a decent-sized effort. Most of the article is not worth keeping, but given that their notability is unquestionable, we should spend a bit of time to stub it. CorporateM (Talk) 07:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2015 (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.