Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toitures Du St Laurent

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. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toitures Du St Laurent[edit]

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

This appears to be part of some paid editing operation. ~~First, though the article states that the company was founded in 2008, it has been operating for "more than 20 years" which is clearly impossible.~~ Next, though there are a lot of references giving this article an appearance of credibility, most of the references either don't support claims made in the article or are self-published sources. Third, I'm a little amazed that a seemingly new user knew how to use stub templates. Finally, this article seems to be entirely positive in tone, which set off my red flags. Gparyani (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gparyani. Thanks for your comment. i was improved the content and please check the corporation got natble references from many resources. i found it on search engine and i think it should not be delete. thanks. --Bayu Antasari (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so the numbers have been edited to be more plausible. The other concerns have still not yet been resolved, though. Gparyani (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak speedy delete per A7 (and/or G11). However, the revenue numbers do constitute a credible claim of significance, despite their being unverified and unsourced. Gparyani (talk) 09:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I agree with Gparyani. I nominated the article for speedy under A7 and G11. I did not take into account revenue as a claim of notability, since revenue numbers are not included in the criteria for WP:CORP If that criteria is added in the future, I think 1.2M would most likely be under the encyclopedic threshold.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per several source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete thoroughly nn minor business.Staszek Lem (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The 'references' are mainly directory entries, and the remaining one is YouTube. Turnover is irrelevant here - it may be significant at CSD - and is unsupported anyway. No notable projects mentioned. The quality of the English used is not something I'm taking into account here, but I would advise the author to improve it if they are planning any more articles on the English language Wikipedia. I am intrigued that apparently the company was founded with "hundred of employees" but now seems to manage with "ten expert employees", and what "In typical siding and roofing contractor, it has 3-6 employees more slightly than other company that employ with ten peoples" means is beyond me. Peridon (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems like another paid editor recreated this at Toitures. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bayu Antasari. Gparyani (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails corporate notability guideline. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly even speedy. So they're a company, no claim of notability, clearly fail WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:07, 31 May 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.