Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quakers & Business


 * 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. Courcelles 00:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Quakers & Business

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Non notable WP:ORG. Created by editor with a conflict of interest. Another version with a slightly different name was speedy deleted. References given are not about the organisation but by them. Google does not show anything of note to establish notability. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - As noted by the nominator, the subject of this article does not appear to have adequate coverage in secondary sources to establish notability. VQuakr (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was careful in my notes to recognise the problems identified - suggest you remove it forthwith. Paulwhitehouse (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Recognising is not the same as addressing the problems - how have you done that? Can you show notability with independent WP:reliable sources? You being quoted does not qualify and there doese not appear to be very much on-line to WP:verify your claims. noq (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, C T J F 8 3  chat 00:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - The sources in the article do not constitute significant discussion in reliable independent sources (mostly through not being independent) and my good faith searches were unable to uncover any that do. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:07, 9 December 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.