Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bird Luckin

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. Courcelles 16:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bird Luckin[edit]

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

No indication of meeting notability requirements at WP:ORG. Repeatedly recreated after being deleted as not notable. Apparently created by the marketing director of the company. noq (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was previously deleted as it was incomplete and unpublished at the time. The requirements should now be met as the notability issue has now been addressed, thank you very much. JennyDCook (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC) — JennyDCook (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete the only possible argument i can see for this firm's notability would come from this incident, in which bird luckin was reprimanded and fined for their role in a british stock scandal. not so surprisingly, this incident is not mentioned in the article under discussion here. even if it were mentioned, though, i believe that the article would fail wp:oneevent, since even the one event is not notable. ironically, many of the passing mentions of this company in the british press, like this one from the independent, refer to bird luckin as "little-known". thus does what there is of the press coverage, and there's not much, make a case against this firm's meeting wp:company. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the-mill accounting firm. They exist, they contribute to charity, that's about it. As Alf pointed out, their only Reliable Source publicity came from their involvement in a scandal,[1] and those Reliable Source news stories describe the company as "little known", a "small" company "ill-equipped" to deal with major accounting responsibilities.[2] An article could be written based on those Reliable Sources, but I suspect the promoters of this article wouldn't like the result very much. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2011 (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.