Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ossics


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ossics

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

No sources. Fails WP:V. Fails WP:CORP. Prod contested by author. Since then, no information has been added to address these concerns, despite a number of edits. N Shar 04:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There is basically no assertion of notability. Could be a Speedy candidate. Leebo 86 05:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "delete' per above. Depressingly like spam as well. Grutness...wha?  05:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Pick a reason - it's clearly blatant advertising with no assertion of notability. CiaranG 12:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of notability, and advert style. Kai A. Simon 13:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable.--Rudjek 18:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete nn company, doesn't meet WP:CORP. -- theblueflamingo  confab 04:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- M P er el ( talk 09:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not delete. The content has been trimmed by avoiding reference to individuals and improved by incorporating register number, authority and year. These informations are valid and required to be there on wikipedia as OSSICS is a social organisation and is part of the begining of a movement in Kerala, India. Joseph Thomas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joseph Thomas (talk • contribs) 06:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment How exactly is it "required to be on Wikipedia"? It doesn't appear to meet the notability criteria for companies. At least, the article does not assert that it does. Basically, it reads as promotional material for the company and not as an encyclopedic article. The article does not contain citations from reliable sources (or citations for any sources, for that matter) and seems to be based on primary information. Leebo 86 06:23, 28 January 2007 (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.