Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LeafFilter North Inc


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

LeafFilter North Inc

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Blatant spam. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources addressing the subject in depth as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are a mishmash of dead links and lists that happen to include this company along with many others, demonstrating only that the subject exists and is utterly WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. WP is WP:NOTADVERTISING. Msnicki (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 20:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 20:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment They have 20+ something offices and are the top-ranked vendor by Consumer Reports. The Awards spam was easy to cleanup. I would lean towards stub and watchlist, but I haven't done much of a search for sources. CorporateM (Talk) 23:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neither having multiple offices nor being established by a notable athlete make the company notable. My good-faith search for appropriate sourcing only turned up press releases. VQuakr (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for now as my searches found nothing to suggest considerablr improvement for sources and notability, with some of the best results here. SwisterTwister   talk  21:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Move to LeafFilter (gutter guard) as the product synonymous with the company passes notability under Notability_(organizations_and_companies) - specifically a consumer watchdog organization has published a report on the specific product . This is considered a primary test of notability, and other sources are available . The company does not seem to have the same notability but could still be mentioned as its manufacturer within the article on the product. --Acurry4 (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The only reliable source presented (Consumer reports) only mentions the product a single time, in a throwaway comment in a sentence about gutter guards in general. That is inadequate to establish notability (or, for that matter, write a verifiable article). VQuakr (talk) 19:10, 14 August 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.