Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spread Research


 * 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator (NAC),  SwisterTwister   talk  20:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Spread Research

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails on WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Most of the content is written in promotional tone. References are unclear. Tagged for notability since February 2011 without any significant improvement. Hitro  talk  19:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable company. Fails WP:ORG. --Edcolins (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tutelary (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with nominator.New Media Theorist (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you aware of the recent changes? SwisterTwister   talk  21:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Weak Delete Keep: for now, probably a case of too soon, but not a slam-dunk delete. They are the first French credit rating agency and are being quoted by Bloomberg et al but coverage isn't that significant yet, although I did find this, this, this and this. Vrac (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC) The article looks pretty good after Edcolins improvements, changing to keep. I suspect this co. will be increasingly influential going forward. Vrac (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have changed my mind. The sources recently found by (thanks!) show a sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources, in my opinion. Both WP:GNG and WP:ORG met. --Edcolins (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep for now as I suppose it's more acceptable now. SwisterTwister   talk  21:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - The references in the article support notability. The article could use some work, but I do not see a reason to delete it for that. --TTTommy111 (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdrawal- and  have brought significant improvement to this article. In the present scenario, I am withdrawing my nomination and requesting admins to close this debate. Thank you to both users.  Hitro   talk  19:30, 15 September 2015 (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.