Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjel Corporation (2nd nomination)


 * 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Sanjel Corporation
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Simply a clearly advertised business listing, of which our non-negotiable policies make no exceptions, because all sources: 1-4 are simply published news stories about their company activiites and plans, and not consistently significant coverage to suggest actual notability, and a simple search found nothing else better, and searching next found only their own company webpages; both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT state Wikipedia is not to be used as a simple business webhost, and given the history shows clear signs of this, with no avail in attempted improvements, there's no other solution. SwisterTwister  talk  22:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- the article has had a WP:CHANCE for improvement since the last AfD but it did not happen, quite possibly because the subject is non-notable. Thus, delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: The firm's problems have had coverage, for example in the Financial Post article on 29 April 2016 (much of which had been pasted into the article - now removed) and in subsequent discussion of the implications for practice in Canadian CCAA law . AllyD (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems to have been first built as an advertisement. There is weird information like who controls the company that would not be publicly available for a private company. Then, there were obviously problems with the company. But, the page was never updated to address initial weaknesses from the AfD. Jeff Quinn (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: In fairness, the version at the close of the previous AfD had been pruned of promotional content but was re-fattened by subsequent WP:SPA and IP changes. But any substantial coverage that I can see is associated with the firm's attempts to deal with financial problems and then the circumstances around the break-up of its assets. That feels more like single-event coverage than the in-depth coverage needed for WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO. CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:32, 3 March 2017 (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.