Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prestige Economics


 * 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   Moved to Draft Space, though the article in its current form would likely qualify for a G11, and would certainly be deleted at the conclusion of this AFD. moved the article back to Draft:Prestige Economics for further improvement, if possible, while I have deleted the redirect. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Prestige Economics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are two problems with this page, a notability problem and a tone problem. It reads promotionally, and the corporate notability is marginal. If the promotional material were removed, the corporate notability would still be marginal.

The author's response to the initial decline on the ground that it read like an advertisement was to add more promotional media coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Take it to LinkedIn. (The article creator moved it out of draft space after it had been declined at AFC.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion and advertising. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete This is actually clearly eligible for G11 Speedy deletion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.