Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOWER London


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

TOWER London

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I still confirm my extensive and specific PROD here which listed the advertising concerns and the facts of this not actually containing something convincing; what is listed is simply either advertising by people who are choosing to advertise the company or actually then republishing the company's own words. SwisterTwister  talk  01:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  02:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * delete per nom - no coverage that isn't part of a company PR push. Willing to be convinced - is there any RS coverage that isn't from a PR push? - David Gerard (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression this was resolved before when it was edited to be factual, and using reputatable sources such as Drapers. As ever, its always better for Editors on Wikipedia to edit articles to a level they see fit rather than spend hours and hours discussing its deletion. There are thousands of poorly made wikipedia pages relating to companies which can read badly when looking at it with cynical eyes. Edit the article to the way you see fit, dont complain and offer no suggestions thats not how the community will survive, its already struggling to get new editors on board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmorgans (talk • contribs) 11:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * delete Another Corporate SPAM Wikiepdia facing these days in abundance! Light2021 (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- unremarkable and lacks sufficient RS to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Awards are niche and possibly non-independent. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 17 October 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.