Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InterQuest Group


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 09:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

InterQuest Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm bringing this to AfD after a SPA removed the speedy template on the article. I'd discovered this after finding an article on one of the employees that had been nominated for a speedy. (I redirected it to this article.) In a nutshell, this just isn't a notable company. The article is vaguely promotional in tone and while it barely asserts some notability, I can't find any coverage in reliable sources that would show that this is ultimately notable. An editor requested time to find sources, but I'm bringing this here because ultimately this has been around since 2008 and reliable sources have yet to be found since that time. I couldn't find any and I pretty much doubt that they actually exist. There are plenty of primary sources such as press releases and the like, as well as one or two brief mentions, but nothing that would show that this ultimately passes WP:CORP. They seem to be successful, but that's no guarantee of notability. It might make it more likely, but success doesn't automatically mean notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   22:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The employee's article was un-redirected, so I'm nominating that one as well in a separate AfD: Articles for deletion/Mark Braund. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   23:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sources are not reliable and requires additional primary, secondary and teritary sources. Most of the sources are to there website. The article tone sounds like a company portfolio and many not meet WP:ORG. ///Euro Car  GT  01:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I can find passing press mentions relating to their share price movements on the AIM, but not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. A firm going about its business but not of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- (1) it is a listed company (even if only on AIM) (2) It has a turnover of £112M (accoring to annual report on company website. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:ITEXISTS isn't enough to keep an article, nor is the success of a company anything that could give automatic notability. There are a great many highly successful companies out there that never gain substantial coverage per WP:CORP. You have to show notability by way of sources that are not only independent of the company, but are also reliable and go into depth. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Keeping on the basis of financial success can be justified, but the level would need discussion, and will differ in different industries. I don't think this is high enough for ti to be automatic. I accept being listed on one of the leading exchanges such as NYSE as evidence of notability, but AIM is not one of them. &#39;DGG (at NYPL)&#39; (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2013 (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.