Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SPOLD


 * 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   Keep. This is an obvious case of nominator failing to do WP:BEFORE. Experienced editors need not be reminded of WP:BEFORE. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 23:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

SPOLD

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable and no claim of significance.  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  05:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Startup covrerage as usual, nothing to make it pass WP:NCOMPANY. It worms my heart, however, to see other people trying to prune this spam. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  06:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Not a start-up company but an association which was active in seeking a common data format. See pages 158-160 of this book, or this discussion. Should the content here be merged into Life-cycle assessment? AllyD (talk) 07:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Simply nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister   talk  07:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * complete name:


 * Keep per WP:SNOW. This looks like the total WP:BEFORE failure. From among 600+ Scholar hits and 100s of book hits here are a few.                  Sam Sailor Talk! 01:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep- As per above comment.  A dog 104  Talk to me 01:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep and speeedy close per such a lack of WP:BEFORE that the nominator's bringing this here makes me question his mindset or ability (sorry). I politely remind that notability guideline tells us that no article ever has to say "this topic is notable because..." as a topic's notability is found through its sourcability and not through sources actually being used... THAT would be a matter for editorial oversight and not deletion.  And come on ... "nothing to suggest better"... Really??  Sure what was nominated was not well sourced, but that is no reason to delete a notable topic, if actual due diligence shows it as notable. Sorry, and not intended to offend, but what BEFORE did you undertake before making your unfounded statement?   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources are sufficient. Mirror360 (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * [Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 22:44, 13 November 2016 (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.