Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kronos Advisory


 * 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) 23:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Kronos Advisory

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are many very brief mentions in reliable sources, but I can't find anything that comes close to providing in-depth coverage as required to meet WP:CORP. SmartSE (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as none of this confidently suggests better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister   talk  04:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  04:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  04:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  04:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  04:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  04:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Many news hits, even one Scholar hit, but they all seem to be quotes from its staff on international issues. While this indicates their staff have some expertise in this area, it doesn't give us much information on the organisation itself. (In particular, the observation that they are frequently quoted is a kind of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR even though it is true.) Google Books turns up hits but none of them appear to be relevant. I don't think notability is established for this company. SJK (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Lots of puffery in the article, but not much evidence that the firm is notable. Some of its employees may be notable in isolation, but that's not the subject of this AfD. 06:11, 23 April 2016 (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.