Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TREDIC Corporation


 * 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. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

TREDIC Corporation

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Another article copied from a company web site for which they gave proper OTRS opermission. None the less, it is an unsourced article for what is at best a dubiously notable business. We need to find some way of discouraging people from being doing the fruitless work of donating  permission for unsatisfactory material.  DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Nom is a little snarky, and does not call out any strong reasons for deletion. --MoonLichen (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unsourced obvious advertising is obvious Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 02:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability for this company. The article reads like an advertisement and if this hadn't been donated with an OTRS ticket, I'd nominate if for speedy deletion as pure advertising. -- Whpq (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OTRS only confirms permission to use copyrighted material and so rules out G12. If it's still blatant enough advertising to qualify for G11 then there's no reason to not tag it as such. (Disclaimer: I'm the OTRS agent who handled the article.) VernoWhitney (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. Google News gives no results, and Google only returns directories, LinkedIn pages, company websites, and other non-independent/non-RS sources. Regarding MoonLichen's comment, although the proposal isn't terribly helpful - unsourced is not reason for deletion, "dubiously notable" isn't the same as "not notable", and we consider articles on their merits rather than deleting them to set an example - we can judge this as not matching policy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2012 (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.