Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Registered Agents, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

National Registered Agents, Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reason FBevangelical (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC) No reliable, independent sources have discussed National Registered Agents, Inc. The company isn't remotely notable. Even if its links worked, they're not third-party links; the article is based on primary/original research. No independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

 Delete Upon searching the history of the article; I fail to see how this article ever met: 1- "unverifiable" (violates WP:V) There's no verifiable sources. 2 links to internal press releases are not verifiable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V 2- "does not meet WP:BIO" Does not pass notability test on any level. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO 3- "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV)Most of the edits on this page are from users promoting themselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR

It looks like all of these points have been brought up since 2007 on the article and no one has either added something relevant or deleted the article.

Delete I originally placed a notability tag on this page after stumbling upon it. Although the anonymous motion for deletion above doesn't cite the proper rules for deletion, I agree with the general sentiment. The references to support the page are broken links, which appear to have once been press releases. I've done quite a few searches, and cannot find any significant, independent coverage from reliable, third-party sources (most other companies in the registered agent industry also appear to have the same problems). The organization fails to meet any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:ORGSIG) and it has had these issues since 2007. If anything had happened in the past seven years to help make the company notable, I'm sure I or someone else would have found it by now. I think it's time that the page goes away. Thanks! EBstrunk18 (talk) 19:38, 21 March 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.