Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InterExec

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

InterExec[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable company, delivering routine services. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pigsonthewing, can you add a deletion rationaleabove? AllyD (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. That's odd, because I typed it in the Twinkle dialogue, but it doesn't seem to have saved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a niche executive employment agency, with significant aspects of the firm's history not covered. Richard Donkin's 2005 FT article that is the sole source covers their problems relative to the Employment Agencies Act 1973 (which also had some mention in the article until this IP edit) and mentioned profitability issues. See also the more recent Companies House details for Interexec Network Ltd. However, even with reversion and extension, these aspects would not add up to notability here. The available coverage of the firm ([1], [2], both in advertorial tone, plus articles and quotes from the company's own executives) are insufficient to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources presented do not meet the threshold required for GNG. Daniel (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2023 (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.