Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barkman Concrete

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barkman Concrete[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the bogus claim to notability, a WP:BEFORE search doesn’t seem to substantiate this, as all I could see are user generated, self published & unreliable sources. I did see this source but it is insufficient to demonstrate the organization satisfies WP:NCORP. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few additional sources. Krazytea(talk) 22:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be sufficient independent sources - and its been going a long time. sources dont have to be online. Rathfelder (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder, yes Rathfelder you are very much correct that sources don’t have to be online, and I agree to that but the problem is even when I tried other means to find RS, the sources I observed do not seem to discuss the organization with in-depth significant coverage that would be required by WP:NCORP thus I came to the conclusion that this must be an archetype example of bare notability. Celestina007 (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing important found. Oaktree b (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to have much credible citations. Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.