Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karrox Technologies Limited


 * 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Karrox technologies limited

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

Seems like Advertising, Wikipedia is not a directory and according to Wikipedia:Corp there are very little sources. Kingpomba (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete per nom, only 40 branches, there is a pet store in New Hampshire with no article and that has about 40 stores! I have also removed the duplicate AfD notice on the page. SGGH speak! 11:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Great then maybe you should be spending your time writing about the pet stores. Eclecticology (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've moved the article to Karrox Technologies Limitedand also created a redirect from Karrox, where it has been and has been deleted in the past. I also removed a speedy deletion tag, so that we can clarify this now for good. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * article should delete, it seems advertising- of karrox(18:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Keep - Deleting this kind of article reflects a serious anti-corporate attitude. If someone thinks it's "advertising" then become a contributor and make it more NPOV.  Sure there are corporations that are just plain nasty, but getting them in perspective means that we need to also include the more routine information on them too. Eclecticology (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To a certain extent, I agree with about making it more NPOV in order to keep it and not making it look like there is an anti-coprorate attitude on Wikipedia. However, I disagree with that particular point when an article has to be fundamentally rewritten to make it look like a proper Wikipedia article rather than a self-promotional blurb in an indiscriminate form of media that might result in more Google hits for the individuals with a financial interest in the company. This particular article would definitely have to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become a decent article. If someone does rewrite it, it might get my vote to stay. But until then, I see nothing worth salvaging in the article so I vote delete. SWik78 (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete although I cleaned it up a little I see no references to help claim notability.  Gtstricky Talk or C 21:00, 10 March 2008 (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.