Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comlife Investments

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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comlife Investments[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a particularly notable company. The only references are this company's inclusion on several very long lists of possibly shady investment firms. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 17:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most sources appear to be statements from regulators AusLondonder (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this unnotable article. It falls short of WP:ORGDEPTH and based on WP:PRIMARY. Wikipedia is not for promotion or regulatory remarks. --98.124.175.60 (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see how this possibly passes WP:CORP. If the "events" are notable perhaps an article could be written about them under another title, but for now the company itself does not seem notable. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only third-party sources seem to be two brief statements from regulators and an article which explicitly draws on Wikipedia. None of this goes into much depth and should really be excluded under WP:ILLCON anyway. Hut 8.5 21:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company. Keeping the article gives undue weight to a company which seems to only have achieved third party notability in brief statements indicating its poor conduct. AusLondonder (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable BMK (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, and the company's illegal conduct is also non-notable. Miniapolis 23:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all sources appear to be primary. Guy (Help!) 08:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As corporation fails WP:Notability, doesn't even seem to be notable for mentions of company's bad conduct. Shearonink (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe we have a snowball here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2015 (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.