Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austen Morris Associates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Davewild (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Austen Morris Associates[edit]

Austen Morris Associates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article, created by an SPA, is about a business in the world of finance. There are eight pages of ghits, and I can't see anything I'd consider a reliable independent source. It seems to be mostly PR or mentions. The references provided are 16 to the company's own site, and four that appear to be mentions or PR based. I can see no claim to notability in the article. Peridon (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There was also Draft:Austen Morris Associates created earlier by another SPA which reached its G13 date, having been declined as being an advert. When deleting it, I added G11 to the G13 reason as it was pure spam. Peridon (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly promotional. Most of the links comes from the official website. Noteswork (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have removed the promotional references and will continue to add relevant content and references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinspmann (talkcontribs)
  • Keep We have now removed all promotional references. There are now 10 external references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinspmann (talk
contribs) 08:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
!vote struck through as account has !voted already. Please note you are allowed one keep or delete, and anything else must be a Comment. Also, please make sure you are signed in when posting, and please sign posts here with ~~~~. Peridon (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (utter) @ 15:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is clearly promotional in nature. It was also without a doubt written by someone affiliated with the company. -- Calidum 17:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: "we", "our" and vapour emission about meeting demand and strong knowledge, blah blah. If a firm wants to advertise, they can probably just afford to buy webspace; this isn't a free-hosting site. They're an IFA firm, so are many others. They do business, well so does any firm. Routine announcements and the occasional trade press profile confirm existence but do not amount to encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apparently they didn't know how to write on Wiki, maybe give some time to return the entry to normal. Rebelboyl (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC) Rebelboyl (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.