Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Territorial Mint


 * 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. Insufficient notability of the company as a whole, with the limited coverage available all focusing on specific lawsuits. ~ mazca  talk 10:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Northwest Territorial Mint

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unsourced, promotional article for a company of questionable notability. An editor who may have an affiliation with the company has requested deletion indicating that much of the article is factually inaccurate. An additional concern is that the article has become a magnet for addition of contentious, unsourced BLP content about the company's owner. This company may indeed meet notability criteria, but I think the best thing here would be TNT. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 21:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Tentative delete. This business COULD be notable, but as it stands now it is completely an advertisement with only one outside source. Without outside writeups, this is just an advertisement and should be deleted.SoxFan999 (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I added a reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I made an edit to highlight the lawsuits, which appear to be the only aspect of notability. However, on second thought, I still believe that this entry should be deleted. It's one long advertisement with some controversy sprinkled in. If it's not deleted, it should absolutely be shortened.SoxFan999 (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable. FieldMarine (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. One big advertisement with one or two sources about how the company got sued by the state, so it doesn't really seem all that notable. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: For what it's worth, left the following note on the talk page: "Delete. Seems to have attracted the equivalent of a flame war." &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 18:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This seems like a bunch of bs and spite.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.132.93 (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2010 (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.