Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NETCO

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NETCO

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

Notability not established in the past 6 years of debate TheAMmollusc (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:COMPANY.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Brief stub about a title insurance company, referenced to internal sources and a directory. No claim is made that this business did anything to get into an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Despite performing multiple detailed searches through Google News and Books, I haven't found anything sufficient aside from this news article which appears to briefly mention them and this directory which I actually found through a previous search but disregarded it until now. I also found this lawsuit from 2001 in which the plaintiff alleged the company "intefered with Plaintiffs' employment contract" and "engaged in abuse of process". Hoping to find other sources about this, I performed another search and found these results including one from Ohio (supremecourt.ohio.gov), where the lawsuit was filed. I will say, though, that the lawsuit gives quite a bit of detail but I haven't found any evidence of news coverage and that one court case is not sufficient for this article. SwisterTwister talk 19:37, 27 January 2013 (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.