Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alliance Global Group (2nd nomination)

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. KTC (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance Global Group[edit]

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

No clear indication of importance/notability for the company has been established. The only sources cited in the article are press releases. There was a prior deletion discussion, but it seems to have been confused by two distracting issues 1) that the company name "Alliance Global Group" is also used by an entirely different company based in the Philippines, and 2) that the prior nomination did not cite importance/notability as the reason for deletion. The Philippines-based company is a large and highly notable company, but this article is about a UAE-based company that does not seem notable. The UAE-based company seems to be just a regional distributor of other companys' products that has not received significant coverage in reliable sources (to the best of my awareness). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment copied to here from Talk:Alliance Global Group:
@BarrelProof - Delete - Completely agree with your arguments. The article is for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PapaDoc88 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have no idea how the first nomination got a consensus of keep. It was misleading that another company has the exactly the same name. I completely agree with nom. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 21:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete press releases are not independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Not to be confused with another company of the same name which is. Orasis (talk) 05:30, 6 February 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.