Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The EI Group (EI)


 * 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. Nja 247 09:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The EI Group (EI)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is about a company but gives no indication of the subject's notability. Appears to be half encyclopaedic, half spam. Cites only its own website, previously tagged as advert. HJ Mitchell (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per G11, so tagged. ukexpat (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – Sorry, I removed the Speedy Delete for the reasoning below. Let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water :-).  ShoesssS Talk 19:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect – any relevant information to FirstEnergy, as it is wholly owned by this corporation, as a quick Google News search will show, as shown here in particular this article .  thanks. ShoesssS Talk 19:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not sure if I am doing this right but: The EI Group is NOT owned by FirstEnergy.  Never has been, never will be.  Might be another company with a similar name.  The EI Group is privatly held.  So a merge and redirect would not make sense, plus it would be incorrect.  Also how do you describe a company without it being a "spamfest worthy of their PR department"?User:Zallen82   —Preceding undated comment added 20:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment: What relevant information? OK maybe the lead sentence, the rest is a spamfest worthy of their PR department. – ukexpat (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - which does not warrant an outright Delete - but rather a merge and redirect. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 22:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree - merge and redirect. Deb (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment perhaps it should be merged and redirected, but even to do so would require a total re-write. I'd be inclined to agree with the G11 but, being an inclusionist, I'd rather put it to the community. My worry is that to merge it could diminish the receiving article. As for throwing the baby out with the bathwater, the article is almost all bathwater and no baby- if it had substance to it, I probably wouldn't have nominated it, it gives me no pleasure to see an article deleted. HJ Mitchell (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  I 'mperator 20:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as clearly non-notable spam. Plus I hate an apostrophe in a possesive "its". Drawn Some (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, yet another non-consumer service business that's quite unlikely to get much in the way of independent notice in general interest publications. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2009 (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.