Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tangiers International


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 21:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Tangiers International

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The references are barely relevant to the subject of the article, and do not provide in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

*Keep This company is notable for providing medical services to Westerners worldwide. The references appear to be independent and reliable, thus supporting WP:COMPANY. I vote to keep. CastleKing1440 (talk) 05:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The references provided in the article are diverse and they are from Independent Reliable Sources. Although the company gets only a few paragraphs in each of the reports, this may add up to significant enough coverage for notability. --MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, I find it curious that a brand new editor who has only made minor edits before would vote on this article. A previously deleted version of this article was created by a now-blocked sockpuppet user User_talk:Jetijonez.  Also, I've noticed that someone is offering money to get this article published .  I wonder if you have some affiliation with a blocked user or if you have some financial interest in getting this article published.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed, this account has now been blocked for sockpuppetry after a checkuser. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. Yes, strike out the comments from the paid sock puppet. Qworty (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Clearly fails WP:CORP, insufficient WP:RS even for WP:GNG.  Also eligible to be speedy-deleted as a recreation of a previously deleted non-notable article.  And appears to be a promotional work-for-hire, as stated above. Qworty (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete For example, I was hopeful when I saw the UPI link, then realized that this company was just one of multiple companies listed, with no in-depth coverage. -- Scray (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go   Phightins  !  23:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Insufficient coverage from secondary sources. Depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered.--Hu12 (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * keep company is a notable company in Malta as per the coverage from the Malta Independent, which is the one of two prime newspapers in Malta
 * http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2009-08-02/news/malta-based-company-probing-war-contractor-injuries-for-aig-under-scrutiny-228610/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TalentedMan (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Having read that article, I don't think it contributes much to notability.  It talks about something one of the company's employees (allegedly) did, and an apparently inconclusive investigation.  That doesn't make the company itself notable.  Nor does asserting "the company is notable in Malta" a la WP:ITSNOTABLE.  Finally, I would like to point out that TalentedMan is another  brand new editor who has only made minor edits before--just like the blocked sock above.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

-This article talk was to discuss notability, in which I provided a link from the Malta Independent. I object to your sock puppet reference just because Im a new editor- the point is discussion, not finger pointed. Good day-TalentedMan (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public)  talk   00:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete: Fails all notability guidelines. Google searches turned up nothing in the way of signficant coverage in multiple independent sources. Also, clear promotion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:20, 5 December 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.