Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Park 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 speedy delete. Obviously promotional, seems to be agreement of that in the discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green Park Ltd

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

No indication of notability, in the article or elsewhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I find no indication of notability to the standard of WP:CORP. "38th Fastest Growing entrepreneurial business in the UK" and finalist for some awards is not enough. When searching note that there are other companies by the same name, e.g. here. The article was input by Green Park Ltd (talk · contribs). JohnCD (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can see nothing notable about this obvious attempt at self-promotion. No pages link to it. No mentions in Google News. Derek Andrews (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable as mentioned by others. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 17:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is pure promotion. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is some notability but I can only find one source[1] that has a significant amount of information. Other possible sources[2][3] but I don't think there is enough for the the relevant guidelines (WP:GNG/WP:CORP). snigbrook (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11, was already tagged and declined by the same user, so retagging. ukexpat (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, it was I who declined the speedy. Still trying to make up may mind about the AfD. Favonian (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've looked fairly carefully, but the only source I found (other than snigbrook's results) was this one, and that's just not enough. Favonian (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No indication of notability, in the article or elsewhere. A Google search for Green Park Ltd gives hits for a Turkish playground equipment manufacturer company, a hotel company in Scotland, "Trust for African Schools", etc etc, but at least the first few dozen hits make no mention of this company. A search for "Green Park Ltd" interim to force results for this company results in a total of 9 hits, one of which is this Wikipedia article, and all of the rest are Green Park Ltd's own web pages. (Apart from www.green-park.co.uk there are pages on globaltalentpartners.com and diverse-leaders.com, but both of these have the same page design as those on www.green-park.co.uk, and all of them have a copyright note for Green Park Ltd at the bottom of the page.) I can find nothing at all anywhere that could be considered significant third party coverage of the company. (The one "source" mentioned above by Favonian quotes from the company, but does not discuss the company or give it any significant coverage. The first source which snigbrook gives has a little more, but could still not be described as substantial coverage.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As everyone else has said, non-notable. Google doesn't prove notability of this subject. Netalarmtalk 21:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. Johnuniq (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2009 (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.