Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haventec

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 redirect to Ric_Richardson#Haventec. Going with redirect as a middle ground in the delete/merge/redirect spectrum. The history is still here so if anybody really wants to pull something out to merge into the target, they can do so (be sure to cite the source in the edit summary per WP:SMERGE to preserve attribution). -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haventec[edit]

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

The two sources included in the article are the only sources on the company (excluding anything published by the company). Fails WP:NCORP. menaechmi (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. It appears that much of the notability is inherited from the founder Ric Richardson and the company does not appear to be notable in its own right. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Ric Richardson § Haventec. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a line using the sources in the article to Ric Richardson § Haventec. This fails WP:CORPDEPTH but can be discussed in the article of its founder.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ric_Richardson#Haventec; not independently notable. No need for a merge, as the subject is already sufficiently covered in the target article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:58, 31 August 2017 (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.