Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Hardie Commercials Ltd


 * 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. JForget 01:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Hardie Commercials Ltd

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable per WP:CORP, article created with WP:COI issues (see Talk:Thomas Hardie Commercials Ltd); creator's account now blocked for promotional name. No third party citations in the article that mention the company. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Possible candidate for speedy deletion under criterion G5. Prod contested by anonymous editor. Empty Buffer (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how G5 would apply - that's for articles created in violation of a ban or block, not a blanket ban of the work of editors who were later banned. This entry was in fact deleted under G5 just a week ago, as the creation of a block evading sock (that's who removed the PROD), see Sockpuppet_investigations/RealDanMan14/Archive. I suppose User:TrucksPromotionUK could be yet another sock of the same user, but that would mean he's put far more effort into faking an identity than before, normally he doesn't expend any effort at all. Hairhorn (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see a great deal of evidence of "faking an identity", and this user has re-created virtually word for word the same article as was deleted, which would be a little surprising for a new editor. It seems to me quite likely that this is another sockpuppet, or if not then a meat puppet, which is effectively the same. However, I don't see this as very important: we may as well let it run the full AfD course. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. As noted by Empty Buffer, the article fails to show notability of the subject, either by meeting any specific criteria in WP:CORP or by meeting WP:GNG. While I agree that there's a serious COI issue, since it seems the original editor was solicited to create this page by the subject's parent company, I don't think it meets G11, G5, or any other speedy deletion criteria based on evidence I've seen so far. —C.Fred (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence at all of notability. The only "reference" to an independent source is totally spurious, and does not even mention Thomas Hardie Commercials. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: not notable.  Dewritech (talk)  15:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Can only find spammy 'business listings'. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2010 (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.