Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belua (company)

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. Michig (talk) 08:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belua (company)[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:CORP JMHamo (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. I couldn't possibly care less. Gastly is my homie (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC) blocked user[reply]
Delete A search for the company name yields a few hits, like a passing mention here, but fails GNG. I suppose we could redirect to the company founder, who is more notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HERT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what on earth. Anyway, basic WP:BEFORE shows not even unreliable sources - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means, an advertisement with only advertising information about the company and its services, and the sources are absolutely unacceptable, no coverage at all. I would've PRODed sooner if it wasn't that there were risks of having it removed, especially if it was part of a persistent PR campaign. Delete, and the AfC Draft for this has now been deleted also. SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is way, way too soon for an article. FalconK (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not even worthy of discussions Light2021 (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2016 (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.