Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lankadesigners.com

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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lankadesigners.com

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

I don't think this meets the notability guideline. Was tagged CSD A7 twice, but I disagree. Adam9007 (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' The creator has left this comment on the article talk page. I think editors should also take this into account.--Chanaka L (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (This is a Fastest Growing Web Development Company in Sri Lanka .. I Will Update More details ASAP ) --Pathiranag (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable organization. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I also find it fascinating that the third sentence, now removed, matches precisely the line in the actual Murmur Creative article. The line in question is "Murmur Creative's motto, "Success by Design" espouses their philosophy that great branding and web design can (and will) affect a business' bottom line." New Media Theorist (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per my original nominations.--Cahk (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Related discussion User_talk:Adam9007#Lankadesigners.com I'm linking to this here as I think it's important to this discussion. Adam9007 (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable organisation. No references have been cited to establish notability and appears that there is a copyright issue. Dan arndt (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Unless there are foreign language sources available, I just don't see where this company is notable enough for an article. The awards are likely what would push it past A7 criteria, but I can't really find much about the awards, which is almost always a sign that they would not be considered notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. I'd snow close this, but I do want to give the article creator a little more time to provide sources (which they said were forthcoming on the article's talk page) so I decided to just vote and give them this chance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability; Googling didn't indicate any third-party sources, nevermind independent or reliable ones; these are a requirement for WP:Notability.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not justified.--Chanaka L (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing good at all. SwisterTwister talk 07:41, 13 September 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.