Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tagteam Australia

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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagteam Australia[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Tchaliburton (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also note that the user who created the page boasts on their user page that they work for the company. Mreleganza (talk) 08:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do work for Tagteam Australia and have tried my best to present an un-bias view of the company, similar to company pages you would find on Coca-Cola or McDonalds. There is no promotional content or advertising material and is purely informative so I believe it is fair to keep this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmaglanville (talk • contribs) 03:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not because of promotional content, but because of lack of evidence that the company is notable. There is no assertion that it meets any of the specific criteria for notability of companies, and with no independent source, it does not meet the general notability guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not notable. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because, according to WP: an organization "is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization"

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.