Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merlin Holdings Group


 * 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. No evidence presented that this company passes WP:CORPDEPTH. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 06:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Merlin Holdings Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company per WP:CORP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability found for this company or its founder; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment -- If a company, probably largely owned by its founder Keith Cozens, can afford to lose £190M, it must have substantila assets. However I am far from sure of the article's merits, particualrly as the founder's article is merely a redirect to the company.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)




 * KEEP! I agree with the comment above. Any company that HAS, let alone can survive after losing £190,000.000.00 must be notable in my view. Also to have articles in 'Time Magazine' and the 'Financial Times' gives it Extra Clout. A little research found the 'Merlin' brand to be run along the same lines as 'Virgin' with many satellite companies. However unlike 'Virgin' does not seek publicity and keeps a low profile. My interpretation is it passes WP:CORP. After all this site is for Reference and Research. However this article does need expanding. Deangunn (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Did your research turn up actual references to the company anywhere? The Guardian for example, one of the offered vague references, returns zero recognition for either the name of the company or its founder. AllyD (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete unless information can be verified. The references are generic website URLs, searches of those sites don't return anything relevant, and I haven't been able to find any information about this company. If I've identified the founder correctly he appears to be director of a small property business in the UK, and that information is probably derived from Companies House records; maybe there is a link to a larger company or group but I couldn't find it. Also for a company to be a suitable topic for Wikipedia, significant coverage is required, not just mentions of large amounts of money. Peter&#160;James (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 03:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 02:27, 26 January 2013 (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.