Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meredian Holdings Group 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   keep. Sam Walton (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Meredian Holdings Group Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

SPA-written (and published) company article on a privately-held company, article is almost completely from their own website with a single reliable source ref. (the rest blogs, their own PR releases (on trade shows, reorganizations, and patents) quoted from sources, and their own website). This is the only RS:. EBY (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 16:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 16:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 20:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 23:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say Keep. if a little bit of work was done There is enough to improve the article and cites. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That work hasn't been done, so I say Delete. Since when do we keep articles without proper references just because somewhere some good references "might" exist?  Either they're demonstrated or they're not.  Nha Trang  Allons! 21:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep – There was also an article in the China Daily, local newspapers (the farmers), local business sites, and a couple of trade industry sites. The article could be slimmed down and made more encyclopedic, but there is enough there. Not top quality but good enough. IMO having the first food-safe biodegradable plastic is significant. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2014 (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.