Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Procter & Gamble Professional

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. Consensus herein is for deletion. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procter & Gamble Professional

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

WP is not a product catalog DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Delete No separate notability from Procter & Gamble. Most non-PR source I can see is [1]. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a news search doesn't seem to return anything but press releases. I was thinking of a redirect, but if somebody was going to type the article name into the search box, they'd get as far as "Procter & Gamble" and stop. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - could be notable/a valid article split of main P&G in principle, but there doesn't see to be any real content here. Pinging @Ktr101: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless improved. The article as it exists now is quite simply useless and notability is not established. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As is, this is just a content fork of unnotable material from the main P&G page. If someone wants to improve it and make it better, I would be happy to change this to a keep vote, as it has not been improved in the three years since I accepted it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:16, 17 March 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.