Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacksons Fencing


 * 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Jacksons Fencing

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Rescued from speedy, but unconvinced it's notable. Has a claim re the Trident system, but is the source reliable? Dweller (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note Of the three sources currently in the article, two look like press releases and one is just a link to the UK govt body, which doesn't mention Jacksons. --Dweller (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with above, and I also think it has WP:SOAP issues... Colds7ream (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears the author also has WP:COI issues, too, being an employee of the company... Colds7ream (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  00:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete unconvinced of notability of Trident system and hence of this 200+ person company. Seems to be principally an ad. JJL (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A government organization seems to have commended their security fence. Congratulations to Jacksons Fencing! Yayyyy! The people of the world must know! See WP: SPAM. Flying Jazz (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. No assertion of notability. No external coverage to show notability. LK (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is pretty much an advertisement, and the UK government recognizing their fence (a fact which isn't even sourced by a third party) does not make this company notable. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:29, 22 March 2009 (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.