Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esics

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 Keep. Michig (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Esics[edit]

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

Unreferenced, incorrectly titled stub article about an investment-related topic in Australian business. While I feel that the topic is potentially encyclopaedic, the current state of the article risks providing our readers with unverifiable investment advice and should be quickly removed. Possible CSD candidate. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination's assertion that this is unreferenced is blatantly false as the page clearly contains links to relevant pages maintained by the Australian government. For another take on this technical topic see Tax Technical. Andrew D. (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whip into proper shape. Add decent refs. Move to ESICS then move to (or create redirect from) early stage innovation company. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve as needed and I nearly would've closed it myself. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 15 May 2016 (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.