Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libero Sports LLC


 * 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. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  00:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Libero Sports LLC

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article seems to rely on a single Goal.com source. There is an official website and so this company definitely exists but I can't seem to find any other reliable sources covering this that are independent of the subject. I, therefore, fear that this fails WP:GNG. Spiderone 12:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  12:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  12:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  12:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  12:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone  12:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 07:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. Anup   [Talk]  18:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as not only is it simply stating what there is to know about the company and its business, it goes to list its clients which is a notorious sign of advertising. SwisterTwister   talk  19:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:N, WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete – no evidence of sufficient notability. A single self-published source falls well short of the requirements. C679 13:08, 1 October 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.