Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Profit Inc.

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. - Mailer Diablo 19:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Profit Inc.

Part of a walled garden of articles created by an independent wrestling promoter, for some reason this slipped the net. Non notable, fails WP:BIO and WP:A. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability. Most ghits are for the parent company's webpages or for people related to the organization. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 15:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please consider consolidating this discussion with the parent company's AFD nomination per WP:BUNDLE. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 15:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I'd been nominating the articles at the same time I would have bundled them together, but the parent company AfD has already been running over 36 hours and I was chastised for adding to an AfD that had been running that long once before. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reponse: I see. Anyway, it appears consensus is being reached to delete them all so... and I put comments on the related articles so editors commenting on one discussion can link to the other discussions easily. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 16:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do the same as whatever occurs in the other debate. I understand nom's reason for listing this separately, but I have to say that the outcome should clearly be the same. Xtifr _tälk 14:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to clarify I didn't nominate any of the other articles, I just saw this part of the walled garden had somehow escaped notice. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if the parent company's been zapped, there's no reason to keep an article about a stable within that company. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WWC again? Delete as biased, self-promotion. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 00:41, 6 April 2007 (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.